COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Votes and Proceedings

Hansard
TUESDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2010

CORRECTIONS
This is a PROOF ISSUE. Suggested corrections for the Official Hansard and Bound Volumes
should be lodged in writing with the Director, Chambers, Department of Parliamentary Services as
soon as possible but not later than:

Tuesday, 26 October 2010

Facsimile: Senate (02) 6277 2977
House of Representatives (02) 6277 2944
Main Committee (02) 6277 2944

BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

PROOF
 INTERNET
The Votes and Proceedings for the House of Representatives are available at
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/votes

Proof and Official Hansards for the House of Representatives,

the Senate and committee hearings are available at
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard

For searching purposes use

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au

SITTING DAYS—2010
Month Date
February 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 22, 23, 24, 25
March 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18
May 11, 12, 13, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31
June 1, 2, 3, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24
September 28, 29, 30
October 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28
November 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25

RADIO BROADCASTS
Broadcasts of proceedings of the Parliament can be heard on ABC NewsRadio in the capital cities on:

ADELAIDE 972AM
BRISBANE 936AM
CANBERRA 103.9FM
DARWIN 102.5FM
HOBART 747AM
MELBOURNE 1026AM
PERTH 585AM
SYDNEY 630AM

For information regarding frequencies in other locations please visit

http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/listen/frequencies.htm
 FORTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT
FIRST SESSION—FIRST PERIOD

Governor-General
Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce, Companion of the Order of Australia

House of Representatives Officeholders

Speaker—Mr Harry Alfred Jenkins MP
Deputy Speaker— Hon. Peter Neil Slipper MP
Second Deputy Speaker—Hon. Bruce Craig Scott MP
Members of the Speaker’s Panel—Hon. Dick Godfrey Harry Adams MP, Ms Sharon Leah
Bird MP, Mr Steven Georganas MP, Mr Peter Sid Sidebottom MP

Leader of the House—Hon. Anthony Norman Albanese MP

Deputy Leader of the House—Hon. Stephen Francis Smith MP
Manager of Opposition Business—Hon. Christopher Maurice Pyne MP
Deputy Manager of Opposition Business—Mr Luke Hartsuyker MP

Party Leaders and Whips

Australian Labor Party
Leader—Hon. Julia Eileen Gillard MP
Deputy Leader—Hon. Wayne Maxwell Swan MP
Chief Government Whip—Hon. Joel Andrew Fitzgibbon MP
Government Whips—Ms Jill Griffiths Hall MP and Mr Christopher Patrick Hayes MP

Liberal Party of Australia

Leader—Hon. Anthony John Abbott MP
Deputy Leader—Hon. Julie Isabel Bishop MP
Chief Opposition Whip—Hon. Warren George Entsch MP
Opposition Whips—Mr Patrick Damien Secker MP and Ms Nola Bethwyn Marino MP

The Nationals
Leader—Hon. Warren Errol Truss MP
Chief Whip—Mr Mark Maclean Coulton MP
Whip—Mr Paul Christopher Neville MP

Printed by authority of the House of Representatives

i
 Members of the House of Representatives
Members Division Party
Abbott, Hon. Anthony John Warringah, NSW LP
Adams, Hon. Dick Godfrey Harry Lyons, TAS ALP
Albanese, Hon. Anthony Norman Grayndler, NSW ALP
Alexander, John Gilbert Bennelong, NSW LP
Andrews, Hon. Kevin James Menzies, VIC LP
Andrews, Karen Lesley McPherson, QLD LP
Baldwin, Hon. Robert Charles Paterson, NSW LP
Bandt, Adam Paul Melbourne, VIC AG
Billson, Hon. Bruce Fredrick Dunkley, VIC LP
Bird, Sharon Leah Cunningham, NSW ALP
Bishop, Hon. Bronwyn Kathleen Mackellar, NSW LP
Bishop, Hon. Julie Isabel Curtin, WA LP
Bowen, Hon. Christopher Eyles McMahon, NSW ALP
Bradbury, Hon. David John Lindsay, NSW ALP
Briggs, Jamie Edward Mayo, SA LP
Broadbent, Russell Evan McMillan, VIC LP
Brodtmann, Gai Marie Canberra, ACT ALP
Buchholz, Scott Andrew Wright, QLD LP
Burke, Anna Elizabeth Chisholm, VIC ALP
Burke, Hon. Anthony Stephen Watson, NSW ALP
Butler, Hon. Mark Christopher Port Adelaide, SA ALP
Byrne, Hon. Anthony Michael Holt, VIC ALP
Champion, Nicholas David Wakefield, SA ALP
Cheeseman, Darren Leicester Corangamite, VIC ALP
Chester, Darren Gippsland, VIC Nats
Christensen, George Robert Dawson, QLD Nats
Ciobo, Steven Michele Moncrieff, QLD LP
Clare, Hon. Jason Dean Blaxland, NSW ALP
Cobb, Hon. John Kenneth Calare, NSW Nats
Collins, Hon. Julie Maree Franklin, TAS ALP
Combet, Hon. Greg Ivan, AM Charlton, NSW ALP
Coulton, Mark Maclean Parkes, NSW Nats
Crean, Hon. Simon Findlay Hotham, VIC ALP
Crook, Anthony John O’Connor, WA NWA
Danby, Michael David Melbourne Ports, VIC ALP
D’Ath, Yvette Maree Petrie, QLD ALP
Dreyfus, Hon. Mark Alfred, QC Isaacs, VIC ALP
Dutton, Hon. Peter Craig Dickson, QLD LP
Elliot, Hon. Maria Justine Richmond, NSW ALP
Ellis, Hon. Katherine Margaret Adelaide, SA ALP
Emerson, Hon. Craig Anthony Rankin, QLD ALP
Entsch, Warren George Leichhardt, QLD LP
Ferguson, Hon. Laurie Donald Thomas Werriwa, NSW ALP
Ferguson, Hon. Martin John, AM Batman, VIC ALP
Fitzgibbon, Hon. Joel Andrew Hunter, NSW ALP
Fletcher, Paul William Bradfield, NSW LP
Forrest, John Alexander Mallee, VIC Nats

ii
 Members of the House of Representatives
Members Division Party
Frydenberg, Joshua Anthony Kooyong, VIC LP
Gambaro, Hon. Teresa Brisbane, QLD LP
Garrett, Hon. Peter Robert, AM Kingsford Smith, NSW ALP
Gash, Joanna Gilmore, NSW LP
Georganas, Steve Hindmarsh, SA ALP
Gibbons, Stephen William Bendigo, VIC ALP
Gillard, Hon. Julia Eileen Lalor, VIC ALP
Gray, Hon. Gary, AO Brand, WA ALP
Grierson, Sharon Joy Newcastle, NSW ALP
Griffin, Hon. Alan Peter Bruce, VIC ALP
Griggs, Natasha Louise Solomon, NT CLP
Haase, Barry Wayne Durack, WA LP
Hall, Jill Shortland, NSW ALP
Hartsuyker, Luke Cowper, NSW Nats
Hawke, Alexander George Mitchell, NSW LP
Hayes, Christopher Patrick Fowler, NSW ALP
Hockey, Hon. Joseph Benedict North Sydney, NSW LP
Hunt, Hon. Gregory Andrew Flinders, VIC LP
Husic, Edham Nurredin Chifley, NSW ALP
Irons, Stephen James Swan, WA LP
Jenkins, Harry Alfred Scullin, VIC ALP
Jensen, Dennis Geoffrey Tangney, WA LP
Jones, Stephen Patrick Throsby, NSW ALP
Jones, Ewen Thomas Herbert, QLD LP
Katter, Hon. Robert Carl Kennedy, QLD Ind
Keenan, Michael Fayat Stirling, WA LP
Kelly, Hon. Michael Joseph, AM Eden-Monaro, NSW ALP
Kelly, Craig Hughes, NSW LP
King, Hon. Catherine Fiona Ballarat, VIC ALP
Laming, Andrew Charles Bowman, QLD LP
Leigh, Andrew Keith Fraser, ACT ALP
Ley, Hon. Sussan Penelope Farrer, NSW LP
Livermore, Kirsten Fiona Capricornia, QLD ALP
Lyons, Geoffrey Raymond Bass, TAS ALP
McClelland, Hon. Robert Bruce Barton, NSW ALP
Macfarlane, Hon. Ian Elgin Groom, QLD LP
Macklin, Hon. Jennifer Louise Jagajaga, VIC ALP
Marino, Nola Bethwyn Forrest, WA LP
Markus, Louise Elizabeth Macquarie, NSW LP
Marles, Hon. Richard Donald Corio, VIC ALP
Matheson, Russell Glenn Macarthur, NSW LP
McCormack, Michael Riverina, NSW Nats
Melham, Daryl Banks, NSW ALP
Mirabella, Sophie Indi, VIC LP
Mitchell, Robert George McEwen, VIC ALP
Morrison, Scott John Cook, NSW LP
Moylan, Hon. Judith Eleanor Pearce, WA LP
Murphy, Hon. John Paul Reid, NSW ALP

iii
 Members of the House of Representatives
Members Division Party
Neumann, Shayne Kenneth Blair, QLD ALP
Neville, Paul Christopher Hinkler, QLD Nats
Oakeshott, Robert James Murray Lyne, NSW Ind
O’Connor, Hon. Brendan Patrick Gorton, VIC ALP
O’Dowd, Kenneth Desmond Flynn, QLD Nats
O’Dwyer, Kelly Megan Higgins, VIC LP
O’Neill, Deborah Mary Robertson, NSW ALP
Owens, Julie Ann Parramatta, NSW ALP
Parke, Melissa Fremantle, WA ALP
Perrett, Graham Douglas Moreton, QLD ALP
Plibersek, Hon. Tanya Joan Sydney, NSW ALP
Prentice, Jane Ryan, QLD LP
Pyne, Hon. Christopher Maurice Sturt, SA LP
Ramsey, Rowan Eric Grey, SA LP
Randall, Don James Canning, WA LP
Ripoll, Bernard Fernand Oxley, QLD ALP
Rishworth, Amanda Louise Kingston, SA ALP
Robb, Hon. Andrew John, AO Goldstein, VIC LP
Robert, Stuart Rowland Fadden, QLD LP
Rowland, Michelle Greenway, NSW ALP
Roxon, Hon. Nicola Louise Gellibrand, VIC ALP
Roy, Wyatt Beau Longman, QLD LP
Rudd, Hon. Kevin Michael Griffith, QLD ALP
Ruddock, Hon. Philip Maxwell Berowra, NSW LP
Saffin, Janelle Anne Page, NSW ALP
Schultz, Albert John Hume, NSW LP
Scott, Hon. Bruce Craig Maranoa, QLD Nats
Secker, Patrick Damien Barker, SA LP
Shorten, Hon. William Richard Maribyrnong, VIC ALP
Sidebottom, Peter Sid Braddon, TAS ALP
Simpkins, Luke Xavier Linton Cowan, WA LP
Slipper, Hon. Peter Neil Fisher, QLD LP
Smith, Hon. Anthony David Hawthorn Casey, VIC LP
Smith, Hon. Stephen Francis Perth, WA ALP
Smyth, Laura Mary La Trobe, VIC ALP
Snowden, Hon. Warren Edward Lingiari, NT ALP
Somlyay, Hon. Alexander Michael Fairfax, QLD LP
Southcott, Andrew John Boothby, SA LP
Stone, Hon. Sharman Nancy Murray, VIC LP
Swan, Hon. Wayne Maxwell Lilley, QLD ALP
Symon, Michael Stuart Deakin, VIC ALP
Tehan, Daniel Thomas Wannon, VIC LP
Thomson, Craig Robert Dobell, NSW ALP
Thomson, Kelvin John Wills, VIC ALP
Truss, Hon. Warren Errol Wide Bay, QLD Nats
Tudge, Alan Edward Aston, VIC LP
Turnbull, Hon. Malcom Bligh Wentworth, NSW LP
Vamvakinou, Maria Calwell, VIC ALP

iv
 Members of the House of Representatives
Members Division Party
Van Manen, Albertus Johannes Forde, QLD LP
Vasta, Ross Xavier Bonner, QLD LP
Washer, Malcom James Moore, WA LP
Wilkie, Andrew Damien Denison, TAS Ind
Windsor, Anthony Harold Curties New England, NSW Ind
Wyatt, Kenneth George Hasluck, WA LP
Zappia, Tony Makin, SA ALP
PARTY ABBREVIATIONS
ALP—Australian Labor Party; LP—Liberal Party of Australia; LNP—Liberal National Party;
CLP—Country Liberal Party; Nats—The Nationals; NWA—The Nationals WA; Ind—Independent;
AG—Australian Greens

Heads of Parliamentary Departments

Clerk of the Senate—R Laing
Clerk of the House of Representatives—B Wright
Secretary, Department of Parliamentary Services—A Thompson

v
 GILLARD MINISTRY
Prime Minister Hon. Julia Gillard MP
Deputy Prime Minister, Treasurer Hon. Wayne Swan MP
Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Lo- Hon. Simon Crean MP
cal Government
Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Rela- Senator Hon. Chris Evans
tions and Leader of the Government in the Senate
Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth Hon. Peter Garrett AM, MP
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Econ- Senator Hon. Stephen Conroy
omy and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate
Minister for Foreign Affairs Hon. Kevin Rudd MP
Minister for Trade Hon. Dr Craig Emerson MP
Minister for Defence and Deputy Leader of the House Hon. Stephen Smith MP
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship Hon. Chris Bowen MP
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Leader of the Hon. Anthony Albanese MP
House
Minister for Health and Ageing Hon. Nicola Roxon MP
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and In- Hon. Jenny Macklin MP
digenous Affairs
Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Hon. Tony Burke MP
Communities
Minister for Finance and Deregulation Senator Hon. Penny Wong
Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Senator Hon. Kim Carr
Attorney-General and Vice President of the Executive Council Hon. Robert McClelland MP
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Manager of Senator Hon. Joe Ludwig
Government Business in the Senate
Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism Hon. Martin Ferguson AM, MP
Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Hon. Greg Combet AM, MP
[The above ministers constitute the cabinet]

vi
 GILLARD MINISTRY—continued
Minister for the Arts Hon. Simon Crean MP
Minister for Social Inclusion Hon. Tanya Plibersek MP
Minister for Privacy and Freedom of Information Hon. Brendan O’Connor MP
Minister for Sport Senator Hon. Mark Arbib
Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity Hon. Gary Gray AO, MP
Assistant Minister to the Treasurer and Minister for Financial Hon. Bill Shorten MP
Services and Superannuation
Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare Hon. Kate Ellis MP
Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Develop- Senator Hon. Mark Arbib
ment
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister for Defence Science Hon. Warren Snowdon MP
and Personnel
Minister for Defence Materiel Hon. Jason Clare MP
Minister for Indigenous Health Hon. Warren Snowdon MP
Minister for Mental Health and Ageing Hon. Mark Butler MP
Minister for the Status of Women Hon. Kate Ellis MP
Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness Senator Hon. Mark Arbib
Special Minister of State Hon. Gary Gray AO, MP
Minister for Small Business Senator Hon. Nick Sherry
Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Justice Hon. Brendan O’Connor MP
Minister for Human Services Hon. Tanya Plibersek MP
Cabinet Secretary Hon. Mark Dreyfus QC, MP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister Senator Hon. Kate Lundy
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer Hon. David Bradbury MP
Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Senator Hon. Jacinta Collins
Relations
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity Senator Hon. Stephen Conroy
Parliamentary Secretary for Trade Hon. Justine Elliot MP
Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs Hon. Richard Marles MP
Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Senator Hon. David Feeney
Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Citizenship Senator Hon. Kate Lundy
Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Transport and Hon. Catherine King MP
Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing
Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers Senator Hon. Jan McLucas
Parliamentary Secretary for Community Services Hon. Julie Collins MP
Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water Senator Hon. Don Farrell
Minister Assisting on Deregulation Senator Hon. Nick Sherry
Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Hon. Dr Mike Kelly AM, MP
Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism Senator Hon. Nick Sherry
Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Effi- Hon. Mark Dreyfus QC, MP
ciency

vii
 SHADOW MINISTRY
Leader of the Opposition Hon. Tony Abbott MP
Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Minister for Hon. Julie Bishop MP
Foreign Affairs and Shadow Minister for Trade
Leader of the Nationals and Shadow Minister for Infrastruc- Hon. Warren Truss MP
ture and Transport
Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and Shadow Minister Senator Hon. Eric Abetz
for Employment and Workplace Relations
Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and Shadow Senator Hon. George Brandis SC
Attorney-General and Shadow Minister for the Arts
Shadow Treasurer Hon. Joe Hockey MP
Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training Hon. Christopher Pyne MP
and Manager of Opposition Business in the House
Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Deputy Leader of Senator Hon. Nigel Scullion
the Nationals
Shadow Minister for Regional Development, Local Govern- Senator Barnaby Joyce
ment and Water and Leader of the Nationals in the Senate
Shadow Minister for Finance, Deregulation and Debt Reduc- Hon. Andrew Robb AO, MP
tion and Chairman, Coalition Policy Development Commit-
tee
Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources Hon. Ian Macfarlane MP
Shadow Minister for Defence Senator Hon. David Johnston
Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP
Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing Hon. Peter Dutton MP
Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services Hon. Kevin Andrews MP
Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heri- Hon. Greg Hunt MP
tage
Shadow Minister for Productivity and Population and Shadow Mr Scott Morrison MP
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science Mrs Sophie Mirabella MP
Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security Hon. John Cobb MP
Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Hon. Bruce Billson MP
Consumer Affairs
[The above constitute the shadow cabinet]

viii
 SHADOW MINISTRY—continued
Shadow Minister for Employment Participation Hon. Sussan Ley MP
Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protec- Mr Michael Keenan MP
tion
Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Shadow Minister for Fi- Senator Mathias Cormann
nancial Services and Superannuation
Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learn- Hon. Sussan Ley MP
ing
Shadow Minister for Universities and Research Senator Hon. Brett Mason
Shadow Minister for Youth and Sport and Deputy Manager Mr Luke Hartsuyker MP
of Opposition Business in the House
Shadow Minister for Indigenous Development and Em- Senator Marise Payne
ployment
Shadow Minister for Regional Development Hon. Bob Baldwin MP
Shadow Special Minister of State Hon. Bronwyn Bishop MP
Shadow Minister for COAG Senator Marise Payne
Shadow Minister for Tourism Hon. Bob Baldwin MP
Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Mr Stuart Robert MP
Personnel
Shadow Minister for Veterans’ Affairs Senator Hon. Michael Ronaldson
Shadow Minister for Regional Communications Mr Luke Hartsuyker MP
Shadow Minister for Ageing and Shadow Minister for Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells
Mental Health
Shadow Minister for Seniors Hon. Bronwyn Bishop MP
Shadow Minister for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Senator Mitch Fifield
Sector and Manager of Opposition Business in the Sen-
ate
Shadow Minister for Housing Senator Marise Payne
Chairman, Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee Mr Jamie Briggs MP
Shadow Cabinet Secretary Hon. Philip Ruddock MP
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of Senator Cory Bernardi
the Opposition
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for International Devel- Hon. Teresa Gambaro MP
opment Assistance
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Mr Darren Chester MP
Transport
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney- Senator Gary Humphries
General
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Tax Reform and Dep- Hon. Tony Smith MP
uty Chairman, Coalition Policy Development Committee
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education Senator Fiona Nash
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Senator Hon. Ian Macdonald
Australia
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government Mr Don Randall MP
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray-Darling Senator Simon Birmingham
Basin
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel Senator Gary Humphries
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Defence Force and Senator Hon. Ian Macdonald
Defence Support
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Primary Healthcare Dr Andrew Southcott MP

ix
 SHADOW MINISTRY—continued
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Ser- Mr Andrew Laming MP
vices and Indigenous Health
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Supporting Families Senator Cory Bernardi
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Status of Women Senator Michaelia Cash
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment Senator Simon Birmingham
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Set- Hon. Teresa Gambaro MP
tlement
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration Senator Michaelia Cash
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Innovation, Industry, Senator Hon. Richard Colbeck
and Science
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry Senator Hon. Richard Colbeck
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Senator Scott Ryan
Fair Competition

x
 CONTENTS

TUESDAY, 19 OCTOBER
Chamber
Condolences—
Dr Gareth Clayton ........................................................................................................................... 1
Questions Without Notice—
Asylum Seekers............................................................................................................................... 1
Tasmania ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Asylum Seekers............................................................................................................................... 2
Economy ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Asylum Seekers............................................................................................................................... 3
Climate Change ............................................................................................................................... 4
Environment .................................................................................................................................... 5
Economy ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Water Pricing................................................................................................................................... 6
Defence ........................................................................................................................................... 7
Murray-Darling Basin ..................................................................................................................... 7
Child Protection .............................................................................................................................. 8
Murray-Darling Basin ..................................................................................................................... 9
Murray-Darling Basin ..................................................................................................................... 9
Murray-Darling Basin ................................................................................................................... 10
Schools .......................................................................................................................................... 10
Home Insulation Program ............................................................................................................. 11
Violence Against Women .............................................................................................................. 12
National Education Standards ....................................................................................................... 12
Donations to Political Parties ........................................................................................................ 12
Personal Explanations......................................................................................................................... 13
Committees—
Allocation of Annual Reports........................................................................................................ 13
Department of Parliamentary Services—
Annual Report ............................................................................................................................... 21
Documents .......................................................................................................................................... 22
Ministerial Statements—
Afghanistan ................................................................................................................................... 22
Matters of Public Importance—
Asylum Seekers............................................................................................................................. 31
Condolences—
Private Nathan Bewes ................................................................................................................... 43
Trooper Jason Brown .................................................................................................................... 43
Private Tomas Dale ....................................................................................................................... 43
Private Grant Kirby ....................................................................................................................... 43
Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney—Report from Main Committee ............................................. 43
Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust ........................................................................................... 43
Governor-General’s Speech—
Address-in-Reply .......................................................................................................................... 43
Standing Orders .................................................................................................................................. 49
National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2010—
Second Reading............................................................................................................................. 51
Third Reading................................................................................................................................ 51
Civil Dispute Resolution Bill 2010..................................................................................................... 51
Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2010 ......................................................... 51
Tradex Scheme Amendment Bill 2010—
Referred to Main Committee......................................................................................................... 51
Business—
Rearrangement .............................................................................................................................. 51
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous
Measures) Bill 2010............................................................................................................................ 51
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety Levies) Amendment Bill 2010—
Second Reading............................................................................................................................. 51
Third Reading................................................................................................................................ 63
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety Levies) Amendment Bill 2010—
Second Reading............................................................................................................................. 63
Third Reading................................................................................................................................ 63
Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2010—
Second Reading............................................................................................................................. 63
 CONTENTS—continued

Third Reading................................................................................................................................ 75
Telecommunications Interception and Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2010—
Referred to Main Committee......................................................................................................... 75
Airports Amendment Bill 2010—
Second Reading............................................................................................................................. 75
Adjournment—
Adult Education ............................................................................................................................ 77
Centrelink...................................................................................................................................... 77
Murray Electorate: Echuca Hospital ............................................................................................. 78
Newcastle Institute for Energy and Resources .............................................................................. 79
Murray-Darling Basin ................................................................................................................... 80
China ............................................................................................................................................. 81
Fadden Electorate: School Choirs ................................................................................................. 81
Kingston Electorate: McLaren Vale Regional Awards .................................................................. 82
Gippsland Lakes............................................................................................................................ 83
Ms Sally Chatfield......................................................................................................................... 83
Page Electorate.............................................................................................................................. 84
Ryan Electorate: Building the Education Revolution Program..................................................... 84
Redcliffe Relay for Life ................................................................................................................ 85
Notices................................................................................................................................................ 86
Main Committee
Constituency Statements—
Swan Electorate: Roads................................................................................................................. 89
International Development Assistance .......................................................................................... 89
Fadden Electorate: Health Services............................................................................................... 90
Corio Electorate: Historic Churches.............................................................................................. 90
Indi Electorate: Telecommunications ............................................................................................ 91
Broadband ..................................................................................................................................... 91
Bradfield Electorate: Coeliac Society ........................................................................................... 92
Fraser Electorate: Ride to Work Day............................................................................................. 92
Macquarie Electorate: Lachlan Macquarie.................................................................................... 93
Robertson Electorate: Davistown Putt Putt Regatta ...................................................................... 93
Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2010—
Second Reading............................................................................................................................. 94
International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2010—
Second Reading............................................................................................................................. 98
National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010......................................................................... 99
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010—
Second Reading............................................................................................................................. 99
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010—
Second Reading........................................................................................................................... 107
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Amendment Bill 2010—
Second Reading........................................................................................................................... 107
Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Bill 2010—
Second Reading........................................................................................................................... 112
St Mary of the Cross ......................................................................................................................... 115
Dame Joan Sutherland ...................................................................................................................... 127
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
—————
The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair
at 2.00 pm, made an acknowledgement of country and
read prayers.
CONDOLENCES
Dr Gareth Clayton
The SPEAKER (2.01 pm)—I inform the House of
the death on Thursday, 1 July 2010 of Dr Gareth Clay-
ton, a member of this House for the Division of Isaacs
from 1974 to 1975. As a mark of respect to the mem-
ory of Dr Gareth Clayton I invite honourable members
to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Asylum Seekers
Mr BRIGGS (2.02 pm)—My question is to the
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. I refer the
minister to the following comments by Premier Mike
Rann this morning on Adelaide radio:
I got a phone call about an hour before the announcement
was made by Julia Gillard essentially telling us what was
going to happen. We want to know what it means in terms of
the impact on the local community, the impact on police,
teachers, schools and health facilities …
Does the minister believe that presiding over rushed
decisions without consultation is any way to fix the
mess that is the government’s border protection policy?
Mr BOWEN—I thank the honourable member for
his question. The decision to place detention centres in
particular locations has been undertaken by this gov-
ernment under the same process as has been under-
taken before under governments of both political per-
suasions. I can reassure the member for Mayo that of
course the Department of Immigration and Citizenship
will be entering into considerable discussions with lo-
cal authorities, as is always the case when a decision
like this is taken, and all impacts will be paid for by the
Commonwealth, as is always the case. All education
costs will be undertaken by the Commonwealth, as is
always the case. All health costs will be undertaken by
the Commonwealth, as is always the case.
Tasmania
Mr SIDEBOTTOM (2.03 pm)—My question is to
the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Population and Communities. What does a landmark
deal signed in Tasmania today mean for the future of
Tasmania’s native forests?
Mr BURKE—About half an hour ago a major
agreement was signed in Tasmania. I think it is impor-
tant to update the House on that. The Tasmanian Pre-
mier, as I understand it, is making an announcement at
the moment.
Opposition members interjecting—
CHAMBER
1
Mr BURKE—No, it happened half an hour ago.
The agreement involves Timber Communities Austra-
lia, the CFMEU, the National Association of Forest
Industries, the Forest Industries Association of Tasma-
nia, the Forest Contractors Association, Environment
Tasmania, the Wilderness Society, the Conservation
Foundation and the Country Sawmillers Federation. It
would seem extraordinary to most members in this
House that you would ever find an agreement involv-
ing all of those parties. Anyone who was watching
some of the forestry discussions that happened during
the election campaign would be aware that roundtable
discussions have been happening for some time among
groups that for many years—in fact, for generations—
have made it their core business to be arguing and
fighting with each other.
The nature of what has been agreed at the moment
has been presented to the Tasmanian government and
will also be before the Commonwealth government.
Effectively what we have is the environmental groups
agreeing to a sustainable future for Tasmanian forestry.
There will be a transition away from native forestry,
which the forestry companies are in agreement with.
Some of the native forest reserve will continue to be
logged during this time but, importantly, there will be a
moratorium on areas of high conservation value, in-
cluding the Styx Valley, the Tarkine and the Florentine.
At the same time the environmental groups have
agreed that they will no longer be offering blanket op-
position to the construction of any pulp mill in Tasma-
nia. There is no commitment to the particular site and
there will always be arguments going back and forth
with respect to the pulp mill, but there is an acknowl-
edgement for the first time from environmental groups
about the importance of downstream processing hap-
pening here in Australia. There is an acknowledgement
of the importance of timber communities and the im-
portance of the jobs that those timber communities rely
on. There has been involvement in the various mills
from the work done by not only government but also
the independent mills, whether it be the international
investment in Ta Ann or whether it be McKay or Brit-
ton.
For people like the member for Braddon, who have
spent much of their career looking after timber com-
munities, it provides an extraordinary opportunity for a
long-term sustainable future, overcoming some of the
dangers that have been in the woodchip export market
over recent months. For those that have been con-
cerned about the protection of Tasmania’s native for-
ests, it means that for the first time the areas of high
conservation value which have caused so much argu-
ment over the years are now under a period of morato-
rium.
The government will look at the details and work
through our response, just as the Tasmanian govern-
2 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ment will. But I do think it is important for the House
to acknowledge the extraordinary work that has been
done in building a consensus in Tasmania to provide an
environmental dividend while acknowledging the im-
portant role and future of the timber industry there.
Asylum Seekers
Mr MORRISON (2.07 pm)—My question is to the
Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister concede that
the government’s failure to reopen Nauru, its failure to
make progress with East Timor, its announcement of
two new detention centres and its softening of deten-
tion policy will only make Australia more of a magnet
for people smugglers, not less?
Ms GILLARD—I thank the member for his ques-
tion, and let me answer it using the following words in
terms of the announcement that the government made
yesterday:
I think they represent a very sensible balance on the present
arrangements. They do not in any way undermine the exist-
ing policy. What we will have even more so after these
changes are a mandatory detention system with a softer edge,
but nonetheless a mandatory detention system.
I have to acknowledge those words are not mine; those
are the words of former Prime Minister John Howard
at a press conference on 17 June 2005 when the former
government announced the changes to the Migration
Act—
Mr Hockey interjecting—
Ms GILLARD—on which this government will
rely to implement the arrangements announced yester-
day.
Mr Morrison interjecting—
Ms GILLARD—What I would say to the member
who is interjecting and shouting and carrying on—it
always seems to me that the shorter they are on ideas,
the louder they are on interjections, and we are seeing
that on display today—is that it seems to me that the
shadow minister would not be contending to this place
that John Howard was soft on border protection. The
amendments to the Migration Act in 2005—
Mr Morrison—How many are in detention now—
none!
The SPEAKER—The member for Cook has asked
his question.
Ms GILLARD—and there are some members in
this place who were involved in the advocacy from the
back bench that led to those changes. The changes to
the Migration Act are ones that we are relying on to
deal with children and to deal with at-risk families. I
believe that that is appropriate. At the same time, of
course, we announced our long-term strategy in rela-
tion to detention centres. As recently as last week, the
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship was involved
in dialogue in our region about a regional protection
framework and a regional processing centre. The gov-
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
ernment will continue to pursue that regional protec-
tion framework and regional processing centre. We
believe that that is important to the management of
irregular people movement in our region, particularly
taking out of the hands of people smugglers the very
product that they sell by taking away the incentive to
engage in forward transit.
None of this is easy and I am not going to pretend
that it is. This is complex policy. We have said that
consistently to the Australian people. We will continue
to pursue it. We will allow the opposition to pursue
their three-word slogans.
Mr Morrison—We have a policy. You may get one
soon—we will wait for it. Ask Stephen; he remembers.
Ask Kevin.
The SPEAKER—The member for Cook is warned.
A warning is a preparation for subsequent naming.
Economy
Mr CRAIG THOMSON (2.11 pm)—My question
is to the Prime Minister. How are the government’s
reforms modernising and streamlining our national
economy?
Ms GILLARD—I thank the member for Dobell for
his question. Last week I was talking about the impor-
tance of hard reform—the importance of hard reform
to strengthening our economy, the importance of hard
reform to making sure that we continue to have the
benefits of prosperity. Our nation has emerged from the
global financial crisis stronger than nations around the
world. That gives us a fantastic platform on which to
continue building for growth. But that means we have
to continue with the work of hard economic reform. If
we look across our nation today, we still bear many of
the hallmarks, even in the 21st century, of the separate
colonies that came together to form this nation—that
is, we still have many laws in different states dealing
with matters which are now truly national.
The government has engaged in a drive to create a
seamless national economy—that is, businesses that
trade in more than one state actually face the same
regulation and do not need to adapt because they are
trading in more than one state. Our drive for a seamless
national economy has also been about recognising the
qualifications and credentials of workers so that a
tradesperson who is fully registered in one state does
not need to go through further onerous processes in
order to ply their trade if they move to another state.
This is important national reform.
At the centre of this important national reform is the
reform to our occupational health and safety laws. As
people who follow the economic reform debate would
know, there has been no more important claim by busi-
ness over the years for business to work effectively
across the country than for there to be one set of uni-
form laws around the nation. This would reduce busi-
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ness compliance costs by $179 million. That is a direct
benefit. But of course the indirect benefits to business
are far greater than that. In pursuit of this direct benefit
to business, the government worked through a COAG
process to generate an agreement for model laws,
which all states and territories signed on to except
Western Australia. It was not easy. There were nine
ministerial council meetings, seven meetings of the
relevant agency Safe Work Australia, 20 meetings of
the Strategic Issues Group, a national review, 240 sub-
missions and two published reports outlining the struc-
ture and content of the act, and those exposure drafts
received 480 submissions.
At the end of that extensive process there was an
agreement for model laws. Key features of those model
laws from the point of view of workers were that they
would cover all kinds of workers—not just employ-
ees—in recognition of the changing nature of our
workforce, there would be higher penalties for the
breach of a duty of care, there would be no small busi-
ness exemption, and a qualified health and safety rep-
resentative would be able to issue a provisional im-
provement notice and would be able to direct that un-
safe work be stopped. These are not rights that are
common right around the country today. I take this op-
portunity to say to Premier Keneally, who has indicated
that she wants to walk away from this hard economic
reform, that it is in the interests of businesses and em-
ployees in New South Wales for the reform to proceed.
A deal is a deal, and we will ensure that the deal is
honoured.
Asylum Seekers
Mr FORREST (2.15 pm)—My question is ad-
dressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minis-
ter to her statement: ‘I don’t think it’s the Australian
way to have kids behind razor wire.’ Will the Prime
Minister confirm that by 2005 the Howard government
had overturned the Hawke and Keating governments’
policy of mandatory detention of children behind razor
wire and that there have been no children held in these
conditions since that time?
Ms GILLARD—I genuinely thank the member for
his question. Can I say to him that I just referred to the
2005 reforms in my last answer to a question from the
shadow minister and I respect the role that the member
asking the question played in advocating those reforms
from the back bench of the then Howard government. I
recall attending a meeting with him in regional Victoria
at which these questions were discussed. It was obvi-
ous to me at the time that he was struggling with these
issues in his own mind and that he was desperately
concerned, and he went on to advocate a change of
policy. He was not the only member who did that. No-
tably, the then member for Kooyong did and the mem-
ber for Pearce did, and so did a number of others. I
congratulate them on that advocacy.
CHAMBER
3
But this makes the point that the opposition cannot
play this both ways. The shadow minister has come
into the parliament today and asked a question of me,
trying to indicate to the Australian people that some-
how yesterday’s announcement was inappropriate and
that somehow in making yesterday’s announcement the
government is softening on mandatory detention or in
some way engaging inappropriately with immigration
policy. Yet the member then comes in and asks this
question. You cannot have it both ways. The only thing
I would ask the opposition to do in the modern age—
that is, today—is to honour the words of their shadow
minister from 16 October, just three short days ago,
when he said ‘we are happy to listen to any proposal
from any sphere of politics about how children can be
best managed under the Migration Act’, when they
come by boat and are then subject to our migration
laws. The only thing I am asking the opposition to do
is to honour those words of their shadow minister from
three days ago. Stop, think, analyse and then determine
your position rather than come in here with your three-
word slogans thinking that is a solution.
Mr ABBOTT—Mr Speaker, a supplementary ques-
tion to the Prime Minister—
The SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition
will resume his seat. The Leader of the House on a
point of order.
Mr Albanese—Mr Speaker, House of Representa-
tives Practice makes it very clear that supplementary
questions are to be asked by the person asking the
original question on the basis of seeking additional
information on the basis of the answer that has been
given.
The SPEAKER—The Leader of the House is cor-
rect in referring to House of Representatives Practice. I
suggest that he read the next edition, because I have
ruled on this matter. In other jurisdictions, people other
than the original questioner are allowed to ask the fol-
low-up question. As I indicated in my statement in the
first week of sittings—
Mr Secker—That is right.
The SPEAKER—I am not sure whether the mem-
ber for Barker is crawling, but he does not get any spe-
cial protection. On an interpretation of the agreement
that was entered into, I will allow the course of action
that is allowed in other jurisdictions. Tomorrow morn-
ing I will be making a statement that will indicate fully
my attitude towards supplementary questions, but I
indicate now that, as long as there is no preamble and
the supplementary question relates to matters in the
answer, the supplementary question would be in order.
And it would be in order for the Leader of the Opposi-
tion or his delegate, as mentioned in the agreement, to
ask the follow-up question.
4 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr ABBOTT—Mr Speaker, my supplementary
question is to the Prime Minister. Given that the How-
ard government reformed the detention arrangements
in 2005, why did the Prime Minister deliberately create
a false impression yesterday that children were still
behind razor wire?
The SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the House
will resume his seat. Yesterday I had concerns about
the structure of the supplementary question, but on the
basis that I had not made my statement about supple-
mentary questions I allowed it to go ahead. However,
the follow-up question should go directly to matters
raised in the minister’s answer. It should not be a fol-
low-up to the original question, and it should not con-
tain argument. On that basis then, I am allowing the
Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to rephrase
his question. It must go directly to matters raised by the
Prime Minister in her answer and be without argument.
Mr ABBOTT—Given the question that was asked
by my colleague the member for Mallee, and given the
Prime Minister’s answer, which referred to changes
made by the Howard government in 2005, I ask her by
way of supplementary question: why did she create the
impression yesterday that there were still children be-
hind razor wire?
Ms GILLARD—All I can say to the Leader of the
Opposition is I think he is confused. Can I say to the
Leader of the Opposition: as he would well recall, hav-
ing been a senior member of the former Howard gov-
ernment, over the life of the Howard government chil-
dren were held behind razor wire, and it became an
issue within the ranks of the Howard government. It
was an issue in this parliament. It was an issue I re-
member pursuing as shadow minister for immigration,
including moving amendments to migration bills which
were ultimately defeated in this place on party lines
and, perhaps even more significantly than the discus-
sions within and between political parties, it became a
major issue in the Australian community—a major is-
sue. As a result of it being a major issue in the Austra-
lian community, an issue in this parliament between the
political parties and an issue within the Howard gov-
ernment itself, with noted advocates like Petro Geor-
giou consistently raising the issue, the Howard gov-
ernment determined to change its policy. I am very
happy to say that was the appropriate course—the
change in 2005.
But I say again to the Leader of the Opposition: he
cannot have this all ways. He cannot come into this
parliament and be proud of the 2005 changes and chide
me for not being sufficiently full of congratulations on
them at the same time as saying to the government that
what we announced yesterday was inappropriate. He
needs to pick one or the other. It will come down to a
question of judgment and leadership for the Leader of
the Opposition, which he picks. If he chooses to en-
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
dorse what the government did yesterday on the basis
that he says the Howard government did it first, it is
fine by me. If instead he chooses to say—
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop—Mr Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. On the point of relevance and being re-
quired to answer directly, the point of the question
which requires a direct answer is: why did you give the
implication that you—
The SPEAKER—Order! The member for Mackel-
lar will resume her place. The Prime Minister under-
stands her obligation to be directly relevant to the ques-
tion.
Ms GILLARD—The question of children and razor
wire is directly relevant to this reform, so I say again to
the Leader of the Opposition: if he wants to say, ‘Good
on the government, but the Howard government
thought of this first,’ that is fine by me. If he wants to
say, ‘What the government announced yesterday is
wrong and the Howard government was wrong in
2005,’ let’s have the debate. But the one thing he can-
not do is say both.
Mr Pyne—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table an arti-
cle that is in the Herald Sun today headlined ‘Kids go
free’—
The SPEAKER—Is leave granted?
Mr Pyne—based on the statement of the Prime
Minister: ‘I don’t think it’s the Australian way’—
The SPEAKER—The member for Sturt does not
have the call. The member for Sturt will resume his
seat. Is leave granted?
Leave not granted.
Climate Change
Mr DANBY (2.26 pm)—My question is to the Min-
ister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.
The SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne Ports
will resume his place. I have received correspondence
asking me whether I have a vendetta against the mem-
ber for Sturt. The member for Sturt will attempt to sit
there quietly.
Mr Hockey interjecting—
The SPEAKER—The member for North Sydney is
not assisting, really. I understand what that would
mean.
Mr DANBY—My question is to the Minister for
Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. What does
recent economic research into carbon prices within our
competitor economies indicate? Why, Minister, is a
carbon price important for business certainty?
Mr COMBET—I thank the member for Melbourne
Ports for his question. Today a report has been released
by the Climate Institute. It is a report prepared by an
organisation known as Vivid Economics. It is a well-
respected organisation from the United Kingdom
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
which does research into climate change economic
issues. The report that has been released today is an
analysis of the implicit or shadow carbon prices that
operate in a number of key economies with which Aus-
tralia trades. The study is in fact one of the first efforts,
I think, that has been made to quantify the costs of
policies to reduce emissions or to establish what
shadow carbon prices there are in particular econo-
mies, including countries as important to Australia as
Japan, the United Kingdom itself, the USA, China and
South Korea.
The Vivid Economics report has found that countries
around the world are, of course, already taking steps to
reduce their carbon pollution and thereby moving to
cleaner energy sources and effectively having a carbon
price in their economies. Importantly, it indicates that
countries with which Australia trades, like China and
the United States, already have implicit carbon prices
within their electricity sectors. This is a matter that is
of interest to the multiparty climate change committee
that the government has established to consider the
issue of the introduction of a carbon price, and a matter
that the government has responded to in response to a
request by the member for New England to do an inde-
pendent analysis of what carbon prices would be oper-
ating with some of our major trading partners.
In our economy, a carbon price not only will create
an incentive to reduce pollution but will also provide
certainty for investment by the business community. It
will also increase this country’s long-term competi-
tiveness, because it will drive investment in clean en-
ergy and it will make Australia an attractive investment
place in which companies will do business. The energy
company AGL, one of our major companies operating
in the energy industry, estimates that uncertainty
caused by the delay in implementing a carbon price in
our economy could cost consumers up to $2 billion a
year, or around $60 per household, in higher electricity
prices in 2020. The shadow Treasurer shakes his head.
I will explain: it is because investment in new baseload
electricity generation is being deferred because of the
uncertainty generated by the lack of a carbon price in
our economy.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr COMBET—We have further commentary from
the other side. It is not rubbish. If you engage with the
major players in the energy sector they will tell you
that is the case and they will tell you that is why they
support the introduction of a carbon price into our
economy. The interjections only serve to emphasise
how out of touch those opposite are with mainstream
business thinking in this matter. They are out of touch
with developments that are going on internationally
and their position in opposing a carbon price in this
economy is economically irresponsible.
CHAMBER
5
Environment
Mr KATTER (2.31 pm)—My question is to the
Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Popu-
lation and Communities. Is the minister aware that in
just six years Australia has become a net importer of
pork, fruit and vegetables, and seafood? Would the
minister not agree that this month’s soaring Australian
dollar and the announcement of the Murray-Darling
cutbacks will further reduce our food production by
between five and 15 per cent? In light of this urgent
need to stave off food dependency on foreign imports,
could the minister: (1) increase the government pres-
sure to commence the Pentland solar biofuels project in
the north Australia clean energy corridor; (2) assure a
continuation of the interdepartmental task force prepa-
ration of a cabinet submission on microwater projects
for the development of Northern Queensland’s Gulf
and mid-west (Extension of time granted) and (3)
commission senior departmental officers to address the
issue of water usage in Australia’s north-east and
north-west—the won’t-go-away Bradfield and Bridge
schemes addressing the north’s unused 304 million
megalitres and the south’s allegedly overused 83 mil-
lion megalitres.
Mr BURKE—In thanking the member for Ken-
nedy, I want first of all to acknowledge that there
would be no-one in this chamber who has pushed
harder for us to make use of the water resources avail-
able in Northern Australia than the member for Ken-
nedy. It is an argument that he has been putting long
and hard over many years.
On the issue of the importation of food, certainly on
the products of ham and treated pigmeat and seafood, I
agree—with seafood it is certainly true. The problem
with fruit and vegetables is the process standard. It is
the lack of a sufficiently strong food processing indus-
try in Australia that has caused import figures to go the
way that was stated in the question.
On the issue of the Murray-Darling, I would remind
the House and all members of what I said yesterday:
that the figures which have been announced at the
moment are not government policy. It is also the case
that there is a determination to see how much of what
is required can be delivered through gains in efficien-
cies. Whenever gains in efficiencies are found there is
no loss in productivity, and we are quite determined to
see how far we can go down that path.
The question also refers to a number of other issues
which cross over into other portfolios but I think I can
provide some information on those. In relation to the
north Australian clean energy corridor, from Towns-
ville to Mount Isa the project, as I understand it, is in
the order of about $350 million. When round 2 of the
Solar Flagships Program comes on offer the Queen-
sland government will be invited to make an applica-
tion for that project. Obviously the application from
6 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Queensland will have to meet the guidelines of the So-
lar Flagships, but they will be invited to make an appli-
cation and the expected amount is $350 million. Added
to that is the importance of biofuels; $20 million has
been put forward by the government to establish a bio-
fuels research centre, which would be based at James
Cook University.
Across the north of Australia, I do not think anyone
would argue that we can somehow transplant the food
production of the Murray-Darling Basin, and shift a
food bowl in the south to a food bowl in the north. The
situation in the north is that the soils are harder and
much of the rainfall falls in only a few months of the
year, but there is no doubt that a lot more can be done
there in the future than has been done in the past. You
only have to go to places such as Kilto Station in West-
ern Australia to see where mosaic irrigation has actu-
ally brought some great improvements in productivity.
I have been to properties in the north where these
things have been done and there will certainly be op-
portunities in the north that have not been there in the
south.
Mr Hockey interjecting—
Mr BURKE—I am hearing interjections from the
shadow Treasurer about where the water flows. The
example that I referred to, from Kilto Station, is using
groundwater in that particular instance. Certainly, there
is no doubt that more can be done in the future in the
north than has been done in the past. I have no doubt
that, regardless of some of the biosecurity challenges
and the challenges of soils and topography, we will be
able to find ways of being able to improve the oppor-
tunities for food production in the north generally, in-
cluding in the electorate of Kennedy.
Economy
Mr LEIGH (2.37 pm)—My question is to the
Treasurer. Treasurer, why is a floating exchange rate
important to the resilience of the Australian economy?
Mr SWAN—I thank the member for Fraser for his
first question and congratulate him on his first speech
as well. There has been a lot of debate about floating
exchange rates or market based exchange rates, par-
ticularly given how strong the Australian dollar is. Of
course, the Australian dollar reflects the strength of the
Australian economy relative to other developed
economies. In particular, it reflects very high commod-
ity prices, the highest commodity prices in over 60
years, and it reflects the dynamics of international cur-
rency markets. It does make life more difficult for
many of our exporters. It makes it difficult for many in
agriculture, manufacturing, tourism and education. But
of course our economy has benefited greatly from a
floating exchange rate over the past 25 years. It has
been a very important shock absorber for the Austra-
lian economy. It is one of the reasons why we have had
20 continuous years of economic growth. No other
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
advanced economy can claim 20 consecutive years of
growth. You can see the Reserve Bank today, in its
minutes, talking about the beneficial impact on prices
at the moment from a strong dollar. A strong dollar has
enjoyed bipartisan political support in this House. That
has been a good thing, because that is vital for the con-
fidence of global investors and global financial mar-
kets. Internationally, we have been a supporter of mar-
ket based exchange rates. It has been very important
that, over the last two years, we have not seen any real
outbreak of protectionism, particularly amongst our
G20 trading partners. Because, if that were to occur,
that would be profoundly damaging to all of our coun-
try but particularly to our great exporting regions.
There is a debate about how we can get greater flexi-
bility in currency markets going on within the G20, as
well as a debate about what other structural reforms
must occur in the global economy to rebalance a global
economy so we can have sustained growth over time.
I think that, as we go forward to the G20 finance
ministers meeting this weekend, we would all like to
see a commitment to greater flexibility, particularly in
currency markets. Because if we do not get that then
this debate may descend into another bout of protec-
tionism—the race to the bottom—and I do not think we
want to see that. Countries like Australia would be ma-
jor losers if that were to occur in the global economy.
So there is a responsibility as we go forward, particu-
larly through the G20 process, to make sure that the
structural reforms that are required in the global econ-
omy do come through and of course greater flexibility
in exchange rate regimes are a very important part of
that.
I congratulate the shadow Treasurer for recognising
yesterday in this House how important flexible ex-
change rate regimes are. Unfortunately, the alternative
shadow Treasurer does not agree with him. The mem-
ber for Goldstein advocated direct intervention. Of
course, the member for Goldstein would be better
served by heeding the remarks of his colleagues rather
than seeking—
Mr Pyne—Mr Speaker, I would ask you to rule that
to talk about the frontbenchers on the opposition side is
not directly relevant to the question that the Treasurer
was asked.
The SPEAKER—The Treasurer has concluded?
Mr Robb—He’s concluded telling lies!
The SPEAKER—Order! I will first deal with the
member for Goldstein. I ask that he withdraw.
Mr Robb—I withdraw, Mr Speaker.
Water Pricing
Mr ABBOTT (2.41 pm)—My question is to the
Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Popu-
lation and Communities. It refers to the statement of
the New South Wales Independent Pricing Tribunal
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
yesterday that water prices in New South Wales would
increase by an average of 35 per cent by 2014. I ask the
minister: by how much more will water prices increase
as a result of the cutbacks proposed in the Murray-
Darling Basin’s guide?
Mr BURKE—I am not sure whether the figures that
the Leader of the Opposition is referring to there in-
clude urban water as well. If they do, I can assure him
that cutbacks to the Murray-Darling Basin have no im-
pact on Warragamba Dam, have no impact on Woro-
nora Dam and have no impact on water pricing gener-
ally. With respect to anything dealing with irrigation, I
remind the Leader of the Opposition of two things.
Firstly, the extent to which any cuts have been floated
at the moment are not government policy. Secondly, to
the extent that any reductions that would eventually be
made through any future sustainable diversion limits
are reached through improvements to infrastructure
they would have no impact on productivity and the
sorts of impacts he was referring to. If you improve the
efficiency by which you use the water then you do not
have the same impact on price as what has been de-
scribed there. There are presumptions in the report,
which were described just then by the Leader of the
Opposition, which lead to the conclusions that he has
just reported to the parliament which do not match the
policy of this government.
Defence
Mr FITZGIBBON (2.43 pm)—My question is to
the Minister for Defence. Will the minister advise the
House on the inaugural ASEAN-Plus Defence Minis-
ters Meeting and the importance of security and coop-
eration in our region?
Mr STEPHEN SMITH—I thank the Chief Whip
for his question and acknowledge from the outset the
role he played in the last parliament, from 2008, in ar-
guing very strongly that Australia having an associa-
tion with the ASEAN defence ministers was most im-
portant and arguing for the outcome that we saw last
week, the ASEAN-Plus Defence Ministers Meeting.
This is a most important strategic development for
Australia, which works very well to suit our long-term
peace and security interests in our own region, the
Asia-Pacific. Australia, of course, has been a long-
standing friend and supporter and dialogue partner of
ASEAN. This is yet another piece of the ASEAN re-
lated architecture which serves and suits Australia’s
interests very well.
In Hanoi last week, in the company of the Chief of
Defence Force and the secretary of the department, we
attended, for the first occasion, the so-called ASEAN-
Plus Defence Ministers Meeting. The ‘plus’ includes
effectively those countries that will be included in the
expanded East Asia Summit: the United States, Japan,
China, India, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand and
Russia. This puts in the peace and security cooperation,
CHAMBER
7
in the stability cooperation and in the military and de-
fence cooperation areas all of the key players in our
region. It puts into the same room at the same time the
capacity for Australia to have a conversation about
peace and stability and security in our region, with all
the players there at the same time. At the end of this
year, we hope, at the East Asia Summit, that the pro-
posed expansion of the East Asia Summit by the
ASEAN foreign ministers will be accepted by the East
Asia Summit to see a comparable mechanism occur at
foreign ministerial and at prime ministerial and presi-
dential level.
Australia was asked by the defence-ministers-plus
meeting to jointly, with Malaysia, chair an expert
working group on maritime security. As an island con-
tinent, maritime issues and maritime security are of
course very important to Australia—in the traditional
sense, in terms of freedom of international sea lanes,
but also, regrettably, in the modern sense, for example
in relation to the recent development of piracy in our
general region. We are very happy to co-chair that ex-
pert working group with Malaysia, one of our five-
power defence arrangement partners. Of course, the
issue of the South China Sea was raised at that meet-
ing, amongst other potential maritime or other territo-
rial disputes, and I repeated, both at the meeting and
publicly, Australia’s position on that matter. If there are
maritime disputes, we want those issues to be resolved
amicably and peacefully between the parties con-
cerned, and often there are more than two. We want
that resolution to be effected in accordance with inter-
national law, the Law of the Sea. From time to time, of
course, these disputes, these issues, do raise tensions
and concerns in the region, which is why it is appropri-
ate for these matters to be considered regionally, as
they may well be in the future, appropriately, in the
ASEAN-Plus Defence Ministers Meeting context.
I also took the opportunity, in the course of that
meeting in Hanoi, to have a number of bilateral meet-
ings with my counterparts, including US Secretary of
Defense, Mr Gates. We both agreed on the importance
of this development in terms of defence ministers
meeting. But he also, as I indicated to the House the
other day, underlined the importance in a different con-
text of the forthcoming NATO ISAF Lisbon summit on
transition so far as security arrangements are concerned
in Afghanistan.
Murray-Darling Basin
Dr STONE (2.47 pm)—My question is to the Min-
ister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population
and Communities. Minister, how much of the $5.8 bil-
lion set aside by the former coalition government for
improving water infrastructure management in the
Murray-Darling Basin has actually been spent by your
government?
8 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr BURKE—I thank the member for the question.
Obviously, since I answered a similar question from
the member for Mayo yesterday and said that due dili-
gence had not yet been completed on a number of these
projects, between yesterday and today that remains the
case. I can report, though, that some projects have al-
ready been completed, including the South Australia
Lower Lakes Integrated Pipelines, at $120 million; the
Wimmera-Mallee pipeline, in Victoria, at up to $99
million; the $3.2 billion for state priority projects,
which focus on improving water efficiency and infra-
structure, agreed as part of the Murray-Darling reform
agreement in 2008. Obviously, many of these pro-
jects—
The SPEAKER—Order! The minister will resume
his seat. The member for Wentworth on a point of or-
der?
Mr Turnbull—Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Wim-
mera-Mallee pipeline has got nothing to do with the
$10 billion National Plan for Water Security.
The SPEAKER—Order! The member for Wen-
tworth will resume his seat. That is not a point of order.
Mr Turnbull interjecting—
The SPEAKER—The member for Wentworth will
resume his seat! The member for Wentworth has
stretched the friendship! There was no point of order,
and the member for Wentworth should know that he
should not approach the dispatch box in that manner.
The minister has the call.
Mr BURKE—Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
The project—
The SPEAKER—Order! The minister will resume
his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a
point of order?
Mr Pyne—The point of order is on direct relevance.
The projects about which the minister is speaking are
not about the $5.8 billion plan that the former coalition
government announced.
The SPEAKER—Order! The member will resume
his seat. The Leader of the House on the point of or-
der?
Mr Albanese—On the point of order: it is out of or-
der because it is against the new paradigm of one point
of order per question.
The SPEAKER—I am ill equipped to adjudicate on
this, in that I have not got a document that is approach-
ing the Holy Grail—the agreement—with me. But my
understanding is that it reads that there is only one
point of order on relevance. Having ruled that the
member for Wentworth was not even making a point of
order, and him being very close to absolutely disrup-
tive behaviour—and he was very lucky: the minister is
being directly relevant, as far as I can ascertain, to the
question. I illustrate that, without myself knowing ab-
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
solutely every program that is available, I could not
adjudicate. I realise that I am making assumptions, but
the minister has the call.
Mr BURKE—On the project that I referred to: the
completion and the way it was funded following the
2007 election were obviously after the change of gov-
ernment, and it was funded within the program, as I am
advised. So the fact that funding may have been in-
tended to be done from a different means when the
member for Wentworth was the minister does not nec-
essarily change how things were ultimately done when
the project was completed following us coming to gov-
ernment. For anyone to subsequently want to argue that
projects of that nature are not relevant to the Murray-
Darling Basin I think is drawing a very long and sad
bow.
Child Protection
Ms VAMVAKINOU (2.52 pm)—My question is to
the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Ser-
vices and Indigenous Affairs. Minister, what action is
the government taking to help prevent and address the
neglect of children in the Northern Territory?
Ms MACKLIN—I thank the member for Calwell
for her question. Yesterday the Northern Territory gov-
ernment both received and released the report of the
inquiry into their child protection system. The Growing
them strong together report does shine the spotlight on
their child protection system not coping with the very
significant numbers of children who are being ne-
glected and abused. While it is the case, as I am sure all
members of this House are aware, that state and terri-
tory governments are responsible for their statutory
child protection systems, the Australian government
will continue to work with the Northern Territory gov-
ernment in the interests of children. We announced
yesterday that we will provide additional funding to
increase the number of parents on child protection in-
come support; we will provide additional family sup-
port services, boost the number of child protection
workers, particularly in remote communities; and we
will also provide additional funding to strengthen alco-
hol controls. I am sure it is the case that every single
member of this House would agree that one of the most
significant responsibilities of any government is to
work to protect vulnerable children. No matter where
children live, they deserve to grow up happy, healthy
and safe.
It has been the case that there has been very strong
action in the Northern Territory over the last three
years. The previous government instigated the North-
ern Territory Emergency Response and this govern-
ment has continued that work. We have added an extra
$1.2 billion to make sure that we improve the delivery
of services in the Northern Territory.
Mr Dutton—What about houses?
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Ms MACKLIN—In fact there have been 82 houses
built, if you would like to know. Yesterday I released
the most recent monitoring report. There is a monitor-
ing report released every six months, and, instead of
interjecting and making remarks that are inappropriate
in such an important debate, I would suggest that those
members who are interested actually read the report
and see that there are now additional police on the
ground in remote communities which never before had
police in their communities. There have of course been
tens of thousands of child health checks and specialist
follow-up services with doctors and dentists. There are
now an extra 140 teachers in schools in remote com-
munities. There are safe houses that have been built
and more creches that have been built. Very impor-
tantly, we are in the process of putting in place the new
income management system which will improve paren-
tal responsibility to make sure that welfare payments
are spent in the interests of children. Most signifi-
cantly, for the first time we are introducing the new
child protection income management system, which
does mean that child protection workers can now refer
parents for 70 per cent of income management in cases
of neglect. This is the increased support that we are
providing to the Northern Territory government. We
also recognise that they too made a very substantive
response yesterday and will continue to work to make
sure that children get the support that they need.
Murray-Darling Basin
Ms LEY (2.57 pm)—My question is to the Minister
for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities. Will the minister outline how the prom-
ised 200 gigalitres of water savings from the re-
engineering of Menindee Lakes will be delivered now
that funding for this so-called priority work, promised
in 2007 and still not started, has been cut from $400
million to $100 million?
Mr BURKE—The question asked by the member
for Farrer goes to the importance of works and meas-
ures—
Mr Abbott—Works and measures?
Mr BURKE—Works and measures, for the benefit
of the Leader of the Opposition, is when we refer to
gaining efficiencies on how efficiently we manage our
environmental assets. Too much focus, to some extent,
has been exclusively on an argument that says you can
only find efficiencies at the irrigation end. If you want
to look on farm, you will find that has been the area
where people have driven efficiencies the hardest al-
ready. Centralised irrigation structures are certainly a
good way to go, and that refers to the issues that were
raised earlier by the member for Murray in terms of
what you are doing there to improve efficiencies.
Works and measures says—and this is the reason for
the question for Menindee Lakes—as well as how effi-
cient we can be with irrigation, are there ways we can
CHAMBER
9
more efficiently manage our environmental assets? To
every extent that you can do that you free up more wa-
ter for productive uses while still delivering the envi-
ronmental dividend. This government is determined to
make sure that for each of these individual projects—
Mr Dutton—You should be in the New South
Wales parliament talking this rubbish.
Mr BURKE—The member for Dickson describes
these as rubbish.
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The SPEAKER—The minister will ignore the
member for Dickson. The member for Dickson will
stop interjecting.
Mr BURKE—It is terribly sad if we do not look at
every possible way of trying to drive efficient use of
water so that we can provide security for the environ-
mental assets while still providing the opportunity for
food production and strong regional communities.
There are discussions between the Commonwealth
government and the New South Wales government
specific to the Menindee Lakes program. The issue
there is not in terms of the quantum of money spent but
to make sure that the environmental outcome is deliv-
ered.
Murray-Darling Basin
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (3.00 pm)—My question
is also to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population and Communities. Why is water re-
form in the Murray-Darling Basin needed and what
would be the effects of inaction?
Mr BURKE—‘The greatest environmental chal-
lenge of our time.’ Those were the words of John
Howard on 25 January 2007 at the National Press
Club, when he announced in these words: ‘The plan I
have outlined today is detailed, it is costed, it has been
in preparation for some time; it represents a fundamen-
tal response to the greatest environmental challenge of
our time, and that is of water scarcity.’ Those words
drive home the fact that the challenges we have in front
of us have come forward through a sensible reform that
was initiated by the member for Wentworth but is now
trying to be spiked by the Leader of the Opposition.
In 2007 there was recognition up and down the ba-
sin of the dangers of overallocation. There was recog-
nition up and down the basin that the environmental
interests and the long-term interests of irrigators were
aligned. Whether it is from the algal blooms running up
and down the river systems or whether it is from the
growth of acid sulphate soils, it was well understood
that if you do not have a healthy river it is not just bad
environmentally; it is unacceptable for irrigators and
unacceptable for the towns and communities that rely
on them. That is why decisions were taken for the first
time with the support of each side of this House to
make sure that we could move towards having a sus-
10 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
tainable system in the Murray-Darling. That is why
commitments were made to make sure that money was
available for infrastructure, for buy-backs and for envi-
ronmental works and measures and to make sure that
Australia no longer continued mistakes that have been
made for about 100 years, where one river system was
being run as though the state boundaries made a differ-
ence to the health of the river system. That is why the
former Prime Minister described this as ‘the greatest
environmental challenge of our time’. And that is why
the Leader of the Opposition is not going to get away
with wanting to walk away from a commitment that the
Murray-Darling Basin needs.
Murray-Darling Basin
Mr JOHN COBB (3.03 pm)—My question cer-
tainly follows on from that statement. My question is
also to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population and Communities. Yesterday the
minister claimed that he would not attend community
briefings on the Murray-Darling Basin guide because
he did not want to be ‘looking over the shoulder of an
independent inquiry’. As the minister is now meeting
with irrigator peak groups in the familiar surrounds of
Canberra and as this is the great moral dilemma of our
time, why won’t he travel to meet face to face with
irrigators at one of the remaining 19 community brief-
ings in the basin?
Mr BURKE—Last Friday I did exactly what the
honourable member described. I went and met with
irrigators, as I will continue to do. What I will not do is
decide that when an independent authority are conduct-
ing consultation on their own independent document it
is somehow the time for me to be popping up. In the
question reference was made to meetings that I am
having with irrigators tonight. I met with the New
South Wales Irrigators Council yesterday. More meet-
ings—that have been referred to in the question—are
taking place tonight. This is no different to the meet-
ings that have been taking place for as long as I have
been a minister in this House and that I have continued
since I became the minister for water.
The work of the authority has to be conducted inde-
pendently, but ultimately the document that is called
the plan is the one that has the involvement at a minis-
terial level. So I will be making sure the whole way
through that there is a very direct involvement, and the
consultation of me being physically out there is how I
have done my job the whole time that I have been a
minister.
In terms of dealing with this draft document let us
not forget that there is only one side of parliament in
this room that made a commitment to implement the
draft plan. Those were the words of the Leader of the
Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has so much
confidence in the independence of the Murray-Darling
Basin Authority that he was not even willing to wait
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
until we got to the final consultation period. He was
not willing to wait for any of that. He was going to take
the draft and implement that. We will allow them to
conduct their independent consultation—
Mr John Cobb interjecting—
The SPEAKER—The member for Calare!
Mr BURKE—and that will not stop me as minister
consistently being involved in direct consultation in my
role.
Schools
Ms BRODTMANN (3.05 pm)—My question is to
the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood
and Youth. What work is the government undertaking
to make school financial data more transparent?
Mr GARRETT—I want to thank the member for
Canberra for her first question and commend her on
her first speech in the parliament, where she described
education as the great transformer. Indeed, it is the
conviction of this government that education has the
power to shape people’s lives for the better. We are
committed to making sure that every school in Austra-
lia is a great school and that every child in Australia
gets a great education. That means that information
about school performance and the factors that affect
school results should be available to the public. That is
a key part of our plan to make sure that education is
delivered to all Australians.
Those listening will know of the MySchool website,
which has transformed community understanding
about school performance and continues to stimulate
educational debate. It is a website that has had over 3.6
million visits since it first went up. Last Friday I met
with my ministerial colleagues on the Ministerial
Council for Education, Early Childhood Development
and Youth Affairs and the council reaffirmed its sup-
port for enhancing the data available on MySchool
from December of this year. Importantly, the enhanced
MySchool website will present financial data for both
government and non-government schools. This particu-
lar initiative cannot be underestimated. This will be the
first time in our country’s history that the distribution
of resources at the school level will be readily available
and transparent to the community. We are committed to
ensuring that this financial data is presented in a way
that allows fair comparisons between the financial po-
sitions of schools. That information will allow parents
to understand how well their local schools are funded
and, importantly, where those funds are coming from.
Financial transparency is important, perhaps not to
the coalition given that in the last election they pledged
to actually reduce the amount of funding—a cut of
nearly $3.2 billion in support for education. In our first
four years after coming to power we have spent some
$60 billion on education—almost double what the coa-
lition spent in its last four years. Importantly, the en-
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
hanced MySchool website is a part of this govern-
ment’s commitment to providing transparency for par-
ents, for teachers and for others in the community so
that they have the information they need to have a
greater involvement in their schools. We are giving
principals more autonomy, greater independence in
how their schools are managed and greater account-
ability for finances and for education results. This is a
genuine education revolution aimed at making sure
every Australian child gets the best education that they
can and that every Australian school is a great school.
Mr Hartsuyker—Mr Speaker, could the minister
table the document from which he was reading?
The SPEAKER—Was the minister referring to a
document?
Mr GARRETT—Yes.
The SPEAKER—Was the document confidential?
Honourable members interjecting—
Home Insulation Program
Mr HUNT (3.09 pm)—My question is to the Minis-
ter for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, and it
also refers to issues of transparency. I refer the minister
to his statement yesterday that data on 55,000 insula-
tion safety inspections could not be released because it
‘could cause unnecessary apprehension’. Does this not
contrast with the response of the head of the National
Electrical and Communications Association that until
these inspection figures are released people living in an
uninspected insulated home cannot have peace of
mind? Will the minister release the data and release the
facts?
Mr COMBET—I thank the shadow minister for his
question. Firstly, it is important to recognise what is
being done to remediate the issues that have been ex-
perienced with the Home Insulation Program. There
are significant safety inspection programs underway in
two areas of activity. One is in relation to the former
foil insulation that was installed in many homes in
Queensland and northern New South Wales. That pro-
gram is well advanced and is proceeding well and
remediating the safety issues that have been experi-
enced along the way. The other program to which the
shadow minister refers is the Home Insulation Safety
Program, which is inspecting at least 150,000 homes
that had non-foil insulation installed within them. I
think the latest numbers are in excess of 56,000 homes
that have had inspections performed on them. They are
being done through contracts entered into by the De-
partment of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.
An extensive amount of information has been pro-
vided by the government in relation to all the activities,
including the investigations of noncompliance of vari-
ous companies and the programs of inspection them-
selves. A regular update is provided on the website of
the Department of Climate Change and Energy Effi-
CHAMBER
11
ciency. Yesterday I and the Parliamentary Secretary for
Climate Change and Energy Efficiency issued a com-
prehensive statement in relation to the state of play
with the remediation of the problems experienced with
the Home Insulation Program. The fundamental issue
at the core of the shadow minister’s question concerns
the fact that the inspection program in relation to non-
foil forms of insulation that has been installed is tar-
geted. It is targeted according to a risk assessment. It is
not, therefore, representative of a random sample of
houses across the cohort, if you like, of homes that had
non-foil insulation installed. It is targeted. It is not a
random simple.
The inspection program is only partway completed.
We are receiving assistance or have commissioned as-
sistance from the CSIRO in the risk assessment that is
being developed to identify the homes to inspect. For
example, a poor compliance record is obviously one of
the criteria used in targeting organisations for inspec-
tions. To release that information would not be repre-
sentative of experience across the program. What the
government proposes to do—
Mr Randall—Mr Speaker, a point of order on rele-
vance: the minister has not answered the question
about releasing the data.
The SPEAKER—The minister is relating his re-
sponse to the question and, if you want the added
word, ‘directly’. It may not form what one might con-
sider a direct answer, but it is directly relevant. I think
you will appreciate that there are two different things.
You may couch your question and you can expect a
direct answer. The standing order talks of being ‘di-
rectly relevant’. Since the interjections have quietened
and I have had the ability to listen carefully, I would
adjudge that the minister has been directly relevant. He
has not entered into debate about this question and
brought in any other opinions.
Mr COMBET—As I was saying, what the govern-
ment proposes to do is to continue the safety inspection
program on a targeted risk assessment basis, taking the
advice of the CSIRO in the process. We are commis-
sioning a firm to assist with the analysis of all the in-
formation and develop a final risk assessment when we
are further down the track. The issues that I am advert-
ing to are serious ones. It is not, I think, in the public
interest that this material be made available at the mo-
ment. It is important to get further down the track.
What I propose to do, given the insistence of the
shadow minister on it, is to give him a private, confi-
dential briefing on progress and the work that is being
carried out. It is an offer that is made in sincerity, be-
cause the work that is being undertaken is important
and it is being undertaken in all sincerity. If he wishes
to take that offer up, it would be most welcome, but he
would need to take it up on the terms that have been
offered. (Time expired)
12 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Violence Against Women
Ms PARKE (3.15 pm)—My question is to the Min-
ister for Employment Participation and Childcare and
Minister for the Status of Women. What support is the
government providing to women who have been sub-
jected to violence?
Ms KATE ELLIS—The horrific facts are that one
in three Australian women have experienced physical
violence and that one in five Australian women will be
the victim of sexual assault. These figures mean that
each and every year almost half a million Australian
women experience physical or sexual violence, yet
sadly we know that fewer than one in 10 of these
women who experience sexual assault will seek profes-
sional assistance and support. We know that the sooner
these women can talk to a professional and get that
help, that advice, that support, the sooner and the more
effectively they can commence their journey to recov-
ery. That is why the government has acted and has
launched a new national telephone counselling service,
1800RESPECT, for Australians who have experienced
or are in danger of experiencing physical or sexual vio-
lence. It is also why I am calling on all members of this
parliament to make sure that they can help distribute
this information amongst their communities and
neighbourhoods, in their local newsletters and the like.
We know that for far too long Australians, and particu-
larly those living in rural and remote communities,
might not have had access to professional support.
They will now have that access as close as their tele-
phones.
Importantly, this service is far more than just the re-
ferral system which has operated in the past. When an
individual calls 1800RESPECT—or, in the old style,
1800737732—they will have immediate access to a
professional counsellor and professional support pro-
vided through the truly remarkable staff from the New
South Wales Rape Crisis Centre. This free service is
now available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and
in the coming months we will be expanding the service
to include new technologies and to offer online sup-
ports as well.
The Gillard government have a zero tolerance ap-
proach to all forms of violence in our community. We
are committed to working in partnership with women’s
organisations, state and territory governments and the
community to deliver a national plan to reduce vio-
lence against women and children. However, we know
that the best efforts to reduce the occurrence of vio-
lence must be coupled with work to deliver justice for
victims and to improve the support services which are
available in our community. I am sure that all members
in this place would agree with the importance of ensur-
ing that Australians have access to these very important
support services when they have experienced violence
or when they are in danger of experiencing violence. I
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
hope that all members of this House will provide this
information to their communities so that we can get
support to those who need it most and not let this huge
number of Australians continue to suffer in silence.
National Education Standards
Mr PYNE (3.19 pm)—My question is to the Minis-
ter for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth.
Will the minister confirm that the national curriculum
slated to begin in January 2011 will now not meet the
deadline? Will the national curriculum be joining the
Green Loans Program, the solar panel rebate and the
home insulation scheme as the government’s next
mess?
The SPEAKER—Order! The last part of the ques-
tion is out of order. I indicate now that, in future, be-
cause we have tightened up both ends—the question
and the answer—that whole question would be ruled
out of order if it were tried again. I think that it is just
an attempt to get it on the record, and we have to be a
little bit more careful about that.
Mr GARRETT—I thank the honourable member
for his question and remind him that the recent ministe-
rial meeting that I referred to in my earlier answer to
the House in fact confirmed that the development of
the national curriculum will be continuing as agreed by
ministers both previously and at that meeting. I would
add, though, that I do not anticipate that this is a proc-
ess that should be rushed.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr GARRETT—I make the point that those oppo-
site had a tentative go at a national curriculum and then
retreated instantly without any achievement whatso-
ever.
The SPEAKER—The minister will ignore the in-
terjections.
Mr GARRETT—It certainly is my intention to en-
sure that, working with state ministerial colleagues, we
continue to work robustly on the development of the
curriculum and make sure that all of those issues that
need to be addressed are addressed in a timely fashion
and that a national curriculum is delivered to Austra-
lian students, which is a commitment of this govern-
ment.
Donations to Political Parties
Mr MELHAM (3.21 pm)—My question is to the
Special Minister of State. Will the minister update the
House on the progress of enhancing the integrity of
Australia’s political funding disclosure regime?
Mr GRAY—I thank the member for Banks for his
question. He has had a longstanding interest in elec-
toral reform and in particular in recent years in looking
at the matter of political donations and the like. For the
last 25 years this parliament has been the beneficiary of
insightful legislation introduced in 1984 that brought
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
the first disclosure of political donations. Over the
course of the last 2½ decades, we have seen substantial
tightening and increased regulation of political party
activity, which has thankfully and thoughtfully kept
our parliament at the very leading edge of these meas-
ures globally. It has meant that our parliament has
never faced the criticism or the accusation that dona-
tions to political parties seriously pervert the course of
deliberations in this place.
But we must be continually vigilant to ensure that
our laws and the regulatory environment in which we
play are as good as they can be. On two occasions over
the past two years the government has introduced a bill
designed to increase the transparency of political dona-
tions and to reduce the limit from the current over
$10,000 for disclosure to $1,000. On both occasions,
that legislation passed this place only to be stopped in
the Senate. It is because of its knowledge of this par-
liament that the government, through its commitment
to the crossbenchers, will reintroduce the legislation to
ensure the $1,000 limit is once again able to be debated
in this place. The bill to do that will be introduced in
the next few days. That bill will reduce the limit from
$10,500 to $1,000.
The bill will also prevent donation splitting between
different branches of political parties, will ban foreign
donations, will ban anonymous donations of over $50
and will increase the timeliness and frequency of dona-
tion disclosure.
Mr Hockey—And ban unions?
Mr GRAY—It will ensure that union donations are
disclosed.
The SPEAKER—The member for North Sydney is
warned!
Mr GRAY—It will ensure that disclosure of dona-
tions to both sides of politics is observed in the best
possible way. It is a fact that donations to political par-
ties are extremely sensitive matters. It is also the reality
that the framework that currently supports our Elec-
toral Act and disclosure is a framework that is sup-
ported by all sides of this parliament. The best future
framework is best constructed by all sides working
together to ensure a solid framework for disclosure and
to ensure that the reform of party and campaign financ-
ing is done in a way that can be supported by the pub-
lic and that will support the activities of our political
parties. I invite members opposite to engage with the
government on the improvement of these laws to en-
sure that disclosure continues to be something that is
both the hallmark of our political process and the
benchmark for how we wish to be measured in the
community. I invite those opposite to support the bill
that will be introduced in the next few days and to en-
gage with the government in future discussion on po-
litical party donation disclosure and campaign finance
reform.
CHAMBER
13
Mr Abbott—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I could not properly hear the minister. Did he say that
union donations would be disclosed?
The SPEAKER—There is no point of order. The
Leader of the Opposition will resume his place.
Ms Gillard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further ques-
tions be placed on the Notice Paper.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (3.26 pm)—Mr Speaker, I
wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER—Does the honourable member
claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr ROBB—Yes.
The SPEAKER—Please proceed.
Mr ROBB—I have been most mischievously mis-
represented by the Treasurer. Contrary to what the
Treasurer very mischievously asserted today, I have
never called for intervention in our market based ex-
change rates. But I have called on the Treasurer to rein
in his reckless spending and his waste so that—
The SPEAKER—The member for Goldstein is de-
bating now. He will resume his place.
COMMITTEES
Allocation of Annual Reports
The SPEAKER—I present a schedule showing the
allocation of annual reports of departments, agencies,
authorities and companies to general purpose standing
committees and certain joint committees. A copy of the
schedule will be incorporated in Hansard.
The schedule read as follows—
43rd PARLIAMENT
Speaker’s Schedule
Allocation to Committees of Annual Reports of Govern-
ment Departments and Agencies
Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Is-
lander Affairs
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio
Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Climate
Change, Environment and the Arts and the Standing Com-
mittee on Regional Australia
Attorney-General’s Portfolio
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission*
National Native Title Tribunal**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy
and Legal Affairs and the Joint Standing Committee on For-
eign Affairs, Defence and Trade
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy
and Legal Affairs
Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
Portfolio
Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital
Economy (regarding indigenous programs)*
14 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics,
the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communica-
tions and the Standing Committee on Regional Australia
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Studies*
Indigenous Business Australia*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education and
Employment
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous
Affairs Portfolio
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and
Indigenous Affairs*
Land Councils which fall under the Aboriginal Land Rights
Act 1976
Aboriginal Hostels Limited
Aboriginal Land Commissioner
Aboriginals Benefit Account
Indigenous Land Corporation
Torres Strait Regional Authority**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics,
the Standing Committee on Regional Australia and the
Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Regional
Australia
Health and Ageing Portfolio
Department of Health and Ageing (regarding Indigenous
programs)*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics,
the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing and the
Standing Committee on Regional Australia
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Com-
munities Portfolio
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Popula-
tion and Communities (regarding indigenous programs)*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture,
Resources, Fisheries and Forestry, the Standing Committee
on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts, the Standing
Committee on Regional Australia and the Joint Standing
Committee on the National Capital and External Territories
Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries
and Forestry
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry*
Australian Fisheries Management Authority**
Australian Landcare Council**
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority***
Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation***
Cotton Research and Development Corporation***
Dairy Adjustment Authority***
Dairy Australia***
Export Wheat Commission***
Fisheries Research and Development Corporation**
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Cor-
poration**
Grains Research and Development Corporation***
Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation***
Landcare Australia Ltd**
National Rural Advisory Council***
Northern Territory Fisheries Joint Authority**
Queensland Fisheries Joint Authority**
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation***
Sugar Research and Development Corporation***
Western Australian Fisheries Joint Authority**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Climate
Change, Environment and the Arts, the Standing Committee
on Economics and the Standing Committee on Regional Aus-
tralia
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Climate
Change, Environment and the Arts and the Standing Com-
mittee on Regional Australia
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Regional
Australia
Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Portfolio
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency*
Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Climate
Change, Environment and the Arts and the Standing Com-
mittee on Economics
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Climate
Change, Environment and the Arts
Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research*
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs, Defence and Trade
Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Portfolio
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation*
National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education and
Employment and the Standing Committee on Health and
Ageing
Resources, Energy and Tourism Portfolio
Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism*
Snowy Hydro Limited**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Climate
Change, Environment and the Arts and the Standing Com-
mittee on Economics
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Climate
Change, Environment and the Arts
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Com-
munities Portfolio
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Popula-
tion and Communities*
Murray-Darling Basin Authority**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Affairs, the Standing Committee on
Climate Change, Environment and the Arts, the Standing
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Committee on Regional Australia and the Joint Standing
Committee on the National Capital and External Territories
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Climate
Change, Environment and the Arts and the Standing Com-
mittee on Regional Australia
Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment
and the Arts
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry*
Australian Fisheries Management Authority**
Australian Landcare Council**
Fisheries Research and Development Corporation**
Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Cor-
poration**
Land and Water Australia***
Landcare Australia Ltd**
Northern Territory Fisheries Joint Authority**
Queensland Fisheries Joint Authority**
Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority****
Western Australian Fisheries Joint Authority**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture,
Resources, Fisheries and Forestry, the Standing Committee
on Economics and the Standing Committee on Regional Aus-
tralia
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture,
Resources, Fisheries and Forestry and the Standing Commit-
tee on Regional Australia
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Regional
Australia
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and the Standing Commit-
tee on Regional Australia
Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Portfolio
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency*
Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture,
Resources, Fisheries and Forestry and the Standing Commit-
tee on Economics
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture,
Resources, Fisheries and Forestry
Finance and Deregulation Portfolio
Australian River Co. Limited (reports year end of 30 No-
vember)
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Australia Business Arts Foundation
Australia Council for the Arts
Australia Film Finance Corporation Ltd
Australian Film Commission
Australian Film, Television and Radio School
Australian National Maritime Museum
Bundanon Trust
Film Australia Limited
National Gallery of Australia
CHAMBER
15
National Library of Australia
National Museum of Australia
Resources, Energy and Tourism Portfolio
Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism*
Snowy Hydro Limited**
Tourism Australia***
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture,
Resources, Fisheries and Forestry and the Standing Commit-
tee on Economics
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture,
Resources, Fisheries and Forestry
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Infrastruc-
ture and Communications
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Com-
munities Portfolio
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Popula-
tion and Communities*
Australian Heritage Council**
Bureau of Meteorology**
Director of National Parks**
Environment Protection and Heritage Council**
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority**
Murray-Darling Basin Authority***
National Water Commission**
Office of the Supervising Scientist**
Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
Wet Tropics Management Authority**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Affairs, the Standing Committee on
Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry, the Standing
Committee on Regional Australia and the Joint Standing
Committee on the National Capital and External Territories
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Regional
Australia
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture,
Resources, Fisheries and Forestry and the Standing Commit-
tee on Regional Australia
Standing Committee on Economics
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture,
Resources, Fisheries and Forestry, the Standing Committee
on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts and the Stand-
ing Committee on Regional Australia
Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
Portfolio
Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital
Economy*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Affairs, the Standing Committee on
Infrastructure and Communications and the Standing Com-
mittee on Regional Australia
Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Portfolio
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency*
16 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture,
Resources, Fisheries and Forestry and the Standing Commit-
tee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Rela-
tions*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education and
Employment and the Standing Committee on Regional Aus-
tralia
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous
Affairs Portfolio
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and
Indigenous Affairs*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Affairs, the Standing Committee on
Regional Australia and the Standing Committee on Social
Policy and Legal Affairs
Finance and Deregulation Portfolio
Department of Finance and Deregulation
Australian Government Employees Superannuation Trust
Australian Industry Development Corporation
Australian Political Exchange Council
Australian Reward Investment Alliance
Commonwealth Grants Commission
Commonwealth Superannuation Administration (ComSuper)
CSS Board
Medibank Private*
Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust
PSS Board
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health and
Ageing
Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade*
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs, Defence and Trade
Health and Ageing Portfolio
Department of Health and Ageing*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Affairs, the Standing Committee on
Health and Ageing and the Standing Committee on Regional
Australia
Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio
Department of Immigration and Citizenship*
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and Trade and the Joint Standing Committee on Mi-
gration
Infrastructure and Transport Portfolio
Department of Infrastructure and Transport*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure
and Communications and the Standing Committee on Re-
gional Australia
Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Portfolio
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research*
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure
and Communications
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development
and Local Government*
Australian National Audit Office
Australian Public Service Commission
Commonwealth Ombudsman (incorporates Defence Force
Ombudsman, Tax Ombudsman and ACT Ombudsman)**
Management Advisory Committee
Merit Protection Commissioner
National Australia Day Council
Official Establishments Trust
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure
and Communications, the Standing Committee on Regional
Australia and the Joint Standing Committee on the National
Capital and External Territories
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy
and Legal Affairs and the Joint Standing Committee on For-
eign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Resources, Energy and Tourism Portfolio
Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture,
Resources, Fisheries and Forestry and the Standing Commit-
tee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts
Treasury Portfolio
Department of the Treasury
Auditing and Assurance Standards Boards
Australia and the International Financial Institutions (i.e.
Asian Development Bank, International Monetary Fund and
the World Bank)
Australian Accounting Standards Board
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Australian Competition Tribunal
Australian Loan Council
Australian Office of Financial Management
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority
Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation
Australian Securities and Investment Commission
Australian Statistics Advisory Council
Australian Taxation Office
Board of Taxation
Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board
Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee
Financial Reporting Council
Foreign Investment Review Board
Inspector-General of Taxation
Life Insurance Actuarial Standards Board
National Competition Council
Payments System Board
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 17

Productivity Commission Infrastructure and Transport Portfolio

Reserve Bank of Australia Australian Maritime College*
Royal Australian Mint * Referred also to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure
Superannuation Complaints Tribunal and Communications and the Standing Committee on Re-
gional Australia
Takeovers Panel
Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Portfolio
Standing Committee on Education and Employment
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation*
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio
*Referred also the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Re-
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Rela-
sources, Fisheries and Forestry and the Standing Committee
tions*
on Health and Ageing
Anglo-Australian Telescope Board
Standing Committee on Health and Ageing
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority
Finance and Deregulation Portfolio
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership
Medibank Private*
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics
Studies**
Health and Ageing Portfolio
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Department of Health and Ageing*
Australian National University
Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency Ltd**
Australian Research Council
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare***
Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corpo-
ration Australian National Council on Drugs
Comcare Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety
Agency**
Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal***
Australian Sports Commission
Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency
Australian Sports Drug Agency
Fair Work Australia
Food Standards Australia New Zealand**
Fair Work Ombudsman
Gene Technology Regulator****
Indigenous Business Australia**
National Blood Authority
Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commis-
sioner National Health and Medical Research Council
Questacon – The National Science and Technology Centre National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment
Scheme**
Remuneration Tribunal
Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Authority
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission
Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal
Safe Work Australia
Private Health Insurance Administration Council
Seafarers Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Authority
(Seacare Authority) Private Health Insurance Ombudsman
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics Professional Services Review
and the Standing Committee on Regional Australia * Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Affairs, the Standing Committee on
and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Economics and the Standing Committee on Regional Austra-
lia
*** Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on For-
eign Affairs, Defence and Trade ** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Regional
Australia
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous
Affairs *** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Pol-
icy and Legal Affairs
Social Security Appeals Tribunal*
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Regional
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy
Affairs and the Standing Committee on Social Policy and
and Legal Affairs
Legal Affairs
Human Services Portfolio
Human Services Portfolio
Department of Human Services*
Department of Human Services*
Centrelink*
Australian Hearing
CRS Australia (Rehabilitation Service)*
Centrelink*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health and
CRS Australia (Rehabilitation Service)*
Ageing, the Standing Committee on Regional Australia and
the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs Health Services Australia**
Medicare Australia**

CHAMBER
18 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education and
Employment, the Standing Committee on Regional Australia
and the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Af-
fairs
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Regional
Australia and the Standing Committee on Social Policy and
Legal Affairs
Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Portfolio
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture,
Resources, Fisheries and Forestry and the Standing Commit-
tee on Education and Employment
Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communica-
tions
Attorney-General’s Portfolio
Classification Board*
Classification Review Board*
Office of Film and Literature Classification*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy
and Legal Affairs
Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
Portfolio
Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital
Economy*
Australia Post**
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Australian Communications and Media Authority
NetAlert Limited
Special Broadcasting Service Corporation
Telstra Corporation Limited**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Affairs, the Standing Committee on
Economics and the Standing Committee on Regional Austra-
lia
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Regional
Australia
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio
Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee
Finance and Deregulation Portfolio
Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation*
Australian Government Information Management Office
National Archives of Australia
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Regional Aus-
tralia
Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation*
* Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs, Defence and Trade
Infrastructure and Transport Portfolio
Department of Infrastructure and Transport*
Airservices Australia**
Australian Maritime College***
Australian Maritime Safety Authority**
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Australian Rail Track Corporation Limited**
Civil Aviation Safety Authority**
International Air Services Commission**
Maritime Industry Finance Co Ltd**
National Transport Commission**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics
and the Standing Committee on Regional Australia
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Regional
Australia
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education
and Employment and the Standing Committee on Regional
Australia
Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Portfolio
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research*
Anglo-Australian Telescope Board
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisa-
tion
Industry Research and Development Board
Pooled Development Funds Registration Board
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development
and Local Government*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics,
the Standing Committee on Regional Australia and the Joint
Standing Committee on the National Capital and External
Territories
Resources, Energy and Tourism Portfolio
Tourism Australia*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Climate
Change, Environment and the Arts
Standing Committee on Regional Australia
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry*
Australian Fisheries Management Authority**
Australian Landcare Council**
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority***
Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation***
Cotton Research and Development Corporation***
Dairy Adjustment Authority***
Dairy Australia***
Export Wheat Commission***
Fisheries Research and Development Corporation**
Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Cor-
poration**
Grains Research and Development Corporation***
Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation***
Land and Water Australia****
Landcare Australia Ltd**
National Rural Advisory Council***
Northern Territory Fisheries Joint Authority**
Queensland Fisheries Joint Authority**
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation***
Sugar Research and Development Corporation***
Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority*****
Western Australian Fisheries Joint Authority**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture,
Resources, Fisheries and Forestry, the Standing Committee
on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts and the Stand-
ing Committee on Economics
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture,
Resources, Fisheries and Forestry and the Standing Commit-
tee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture,
Resources, Fisheries and Forestry
**** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Climate
Change, Environment and the Arts
***** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aborigi-
nal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and the Standing Com-
mittee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts
Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
Portfolio
Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital
Economy*
Australia Post**
Telstra Corporation Limited**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Affairs, the Standing Committee on
Economics and the Standing Committee on Infrastructure
and Communications
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure
and Communications
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Rela-
tions*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics
and the Standing Committee on Education and Employment
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous
Affairs Portfolio
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and
Indigenous Affairs*
Torres Strait Regional Authority**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Affairs, the Standing Committee on
Economics and the Standing Committee on Social Policy and
Legal Affairs
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Affairs
Finance and Deregulation Portfolio
Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure
and Communications
Health and Ageing
Department of Health and Ageing*
Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency Ltd**
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety
Agency**
CHAMBER
19
Food Standards Australia New Zealand**
Gene Technology Regulator***
National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment
Scheme**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Affairs, the Standing Committee on
Economics and the Standing Committee on Health and Age-
ing
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health and
Ageing
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health and
Ageing and the Standing Committee on Social Policy and
Legal Affairs
Human Services
Department of Human Services*
Centrelink*
Child Support Agency***
CRS Australia (Rehabilitation Service)*
Health Services Australia**
Medicare Australia**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education and
Employment, the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing
and the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Af-
fairs
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health and
Ageing and the Standing Committee on Social Policy and
Legal Affairs
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Pol-
icy and Legal Affairs
Infrastructure and Transport Portfolio
Department of Infrastructure and Transport*
Airservices Australia**
Australian Maritime College***
Australian Maritime Safety Authority**
Australian Rail Track Corporation Limited**
Civil Aviation Safety Authority**
International Air Services Commission**
Maritime Industry Finance Co Ltd**
National Transport Commission**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics
and the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Commu-
nications
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure
and Communications
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education
and Employment and the Standing Committee on Infrastruc-
ture and Communications
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development
and Local Government*
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics,
the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communica-
tions and the Joint Standing Committee on the National
Capital and External Territories
20 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Com-
munities Portfolio
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Popula-
tion and Communities*
Australian Heritage Council**
Bureau of Meteorology**
Director of National Parks**
Environment Protection and Heritage Council**
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority**
Murray-Darling Basin Authority***
National Water Commission**
Office of the Supervising Scientist**
Wet Tropics Management Authority**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Affairs, the Standing Committee on
Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry, the Standing
Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts
and the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital
and External Territories
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Climate
Change, Environment and the Arts
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture,
Resources, Fisheries and Forestry and the Standing Commit-
tee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts
Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
Attorney-General’s Portfolio
Attorney-General’s Department
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Administrative Review Council
Australian Crime Commission
Australian Customs Service
Australian Federal Police
Australian Government Solicitor
Australian Institute of Criminology
Australian Law Reform Commission
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation
Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre
(AUSTRAC)
Classification Board*
Classification Review Board*
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Copyright Tribunal
Criminology Research Council
CrimTrac
Family Court of Australia
Family Law Council
Federal Court of Australia
Federal Magistrates Court of Australia
Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal
High Court of Australia
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission**
Insolvency and Trustee Service, Australia
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
National Native Title Tribunal***
Office of Film and Literature Classification*
Office of Parliamentary Counsel
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure
and Communications
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and the Joint Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Affairs
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous
Affairs Portfolio
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and
Indigenous Affairs*
Australian Institute of Family Studies
National Childcare Accreditation Council Inc
Office of the Status of Women
Social Security Appeals Tribunal**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Affairs, the Standing Committee on
Economics and the Standing Committee on Regional Austra-
lia
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education
and Employment
Health and Ageing Portfolio
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare*
Gene Technology Regulator**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health and
Ageing
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health and
Ageing and the Standing Committee on Regional Australia
Human Services Portfolio
Department of Human Services*
Centrelink*
Child Support Agency***
CRS Australia (Rehabilitation Service)*
Health Services Australia**
Medicare Australia**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education and
Employment, the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing
and the Standing Committee on Regional Australia
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Health and
Ageing and the Standing Committee on Regional Australia
*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Regional
Australia
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Commonwealth Ombudsman (incorporates Defence Force
Ombudsman, Tax Ombudsman and ACT Ombudsman)*
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security**
Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General
Office of the Privacy Commissioner
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics
and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, De-
fence and Trade
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 21

** Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign *** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Infrastruc-
Affairs, Defence and Trade ture and Communications
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio
Finance and Deregulation Portfolio Department of Immigration and Citizenship*
Australian Electoral Commission * Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and the Joint Standing Committee on Migration
and Trade Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Attorney-General’s Portfolio Commonwealth Ombudsman (incorporates Defence Force
Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal Ombudsman, Tax Ombudsman and ACT Ombudsman)*
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission* Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security**
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Office of National Assessments
Torres Strait Islander Affairs and the Standing Committee on * Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics
Social Policy and Legal Affairs and the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Af-
Defence Portfolio fairs
Department of Defence ** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Social Policy
and Legal Affairs
Department of Veterans’ Affairs
Joint Standing Committee on Migration
Australian War Memorial
Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio
Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority
Department of Immigration and Citizenship*
Defence Housing Australia
Migration Agents Registration Authority
Frontline Defence Services
Migration Review Tribunal
Judge Advocate General
Refugee Review Tribunal
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics
Military Superannuation and Benefits Board of Trustees No.
and to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs,
1
Defence and Trade
National Treatment Committee
Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and
Repatriation Commission External Territories
Repatriation Medical Authority Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Royal Australian Air Force Veterans’ Residences Trust Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development
Services Trust Funds and Local Government*
Veterans’ Review Board National Capital Authority
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio * Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics,
Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal* the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communica-
tions and the Standing Committee on Regional Australia
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education and
Employment Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Com-
munities Portfolio
Finance and Deregulation Portfolio
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Popula-
ASC Pty Ltd (Australian Submarine Corporation) tion and Committees (regarding Australian Antarctic and
Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio Sub-Antarctic Territories)*
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade* * Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and
AusAID Torres Strait Islander Affairs, the Standing Committee on
Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry, the Standing
Australia-China Council
Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts
Australia-India Council and the Standing Committee on Regional Australia
Australia-Indonesia Institute DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY
Australia-Japan Foundation SERVICES
Australia-Korea Foundation Annual Report
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research** The SPEAKER (3.27 pm)—Pursuant to section 65
Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office of the Parliamentary Services Act 1999, I present the
Australian Trade Commission annual report of the Department of Parliamentary Ser-
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation*** vices for 2009-10.
* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary pa-
** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, per.
Resources, Fisheries and Forestry

CHAMBER
22 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DOCUMENTS
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House)
(3.28 pm)—Documents are presented as listed in the
schedule circulated to honourable members earlier to-
day. Details of the documents will be recorded in the
Votes and Proceedings and I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Australian Rail Track Corporation Ltd—Report for 2009-10.
Department of Finance and Deregulation—Campaign adver-
tising by Australian Government departments and agen-
cies—Report for 2009-10.
Debate (on motion by Mr Hartsuyker) adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Afghanistan
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (3.28
pm)—by leave—A national government has no more
important task than defending the nation, its people and
their interests. That is why we take so seriously any
decision to go to war. The war in Afghanistan is no
different. Today I will answer five questions Austra-
lians are asking about the war:
• why Australia is involved in Afghanistan;
• what the international community is seeking to
achieve and how;
• what Australia’s contribution is to this interna-
tional effort—our mission;
• what progress is being made; and
• what the future is of our commitment in Afghani-
stan.
Of course, while our troops remain in the field, I
must be responsible in how much I say. But in answer-
ing those questions, I want to be as frank as I can be
with the Australian people. I want to paint a very hon-
est picture of the difficulties and challenges facing our
mission in Afghanistan. The new international strategy
and the surge in international troops responded to a
deteriorating security situation. This means more fight-
ing; more violence. It risks more casualties. There will
be many hard days ahead.
1. Why Australia is involved in Afghanistan
Australia has two vital national interests in Afghani-
stan—(1) to make sure that Afghanistan never again
becomes a safe haven for terrorists, a place where at-
tacks on us and our allies begin, and (2) to stand firmly
by our alliance commitment to the United States, for-
mally invoked following the attacks on New York and
Washington in 2001. Last month we marked the ninth
anniversary of al-Qaeda’s September 11 attacks. Be-
fore September 11 al-Qaeda had a safe haven in Af-
ghanistan under the Taliban government, a safe haven
where they could recruit, indoctrinate, train, plan, fi-
nance and conspire to kill. On September 11, al-Qaeda
murdered more than 3,000 people—thousands of
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Americans, citizens of our ally the United States, peo-
ple from many other countries and 10 Australians, 10
of our own, never forgotten. And millions of people
were terrified.
So we went to Afghanistan to make sure it would
never again be a safe haven for al-Qaeda. We went
with our friends and allies, as part of the international
community. We went with the support of the United
Nations. The war has put pressure on al-Qaeda’s core
leadership—killed some, captured others, forced many
into hiding and forced them all onto the defensive. Al-
Qaeda has been dealt a severe blow.
But al-Qaeda remains a resilient and persistent net-
work. Our successes against it in Afghanistan are only
part of our effort against terrorism. We are working to
counter the rise of affiliated groups in new areas, such
as Somalia and Yemen, and violent extremism and ter-
rorist groups in Pakistan. That is why we support ef-
forts in those countries, with those governments, to
target terrorist groups there as well.
The terror did not end on September 11. Since 2001,
some 100 Australians have been killed in extremists’
attacks overseas. Among them: 88 Australians were
killed in the Bali bombing in 2002 and four Australians
were killed in the second Bali bombing in 2005. Our
embassy has been bombed in Jakarta. In each of these
cases, the terrorist groups involved had links to Af-
ghanistan. If the insurgency in Afghanistan were to
succeed, if the international community were to with-
draw, then Afghanistan could once again become a safe
haven for terrorists. Al-Qaeda’s ability to recruit, in-
doctrinate, train, plan, finance and conspire to kill
would be far greater than it is today. And the propa-
ganda victory for terrorists worldwide would be enor-
mous. So the goal of Australia and the international
community is clear: to deny terrorist networks a safe
haven in Afghanistan.
2. What the international community is seeking to
achieve: the new international strategy
The international community has been in Afghani-
stan a long time—nine years.
An incident having occurred in the gallery—
The SPEAKER—Order! The gallery will come to
order.
Ms GILLARD—The Australian people are entitled
to know what we are trying to achieve and when our
troops can come home. Removing the Taliban govern-
ment in 2001 and pursuing al-Qaeda in the years since
has made a crucial difference in preventing terrorist
attacks. From 2001 to mid-2006, US and coalition
forces and Afghan troops fought relatively low levels
of insurgent violence. The international force in Af-
ghanistan was focused on a stabilisation mission. And
there were no Australian units deployed in Afghanistan
between December 2002 and September 2005.
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Through this period, few would now argue, US and
international attention turned heavily to Iraq.
Australia’s substantial military involvement in Af-
ghanistan resumed when the special forces task force
was redeployed there for 12 months from September
2005 in support of international efforts to target key
insurgents. Violence increased further in mid-2006,
particularly in the east and the south. Due to significant
intimidation and the absence of effective governance in
many rural areas, some Afghans turned to the Taliban
at this time.
The mission moved to a counter-insurgency focus.
Australia’s contribution increased from October 2008
on as we took a growing role in training and mentoring
in the southern Afghanistan province of Uruzgan.
However, the international counter-insurgency mission
was not adequately resourced until 2009. In December
2009 President Obama announced a revised strategy
for Afghanistan and a surge of 30,000 US troops.
NATO has contributed more. So has Australia. I be-
lieve we now have the right strategy, an experienced
commander in General Petraeus and the resources
needed to deliver the strategy. The overarching goal of
the new strategy is to enable transition—that is, to pre-
pare the government of Afghanistan to take lead re-
sponsibility for its own security.
But our vital national interests, in preventing Af-
ghanistan being a safe haven for terrorists who attack
us and in supporting our ally, do not end with transi-
tion. Our aim is that the new international strategy sees
a functioning Afghan state become able to assume re-
sponsibility for preventing the country from being a
safe haven for terrorists. Australia’s key role in that
mission, training and mentoring the 4th Brigade of the
Afghan National Army in Uruzgan, is expected to take
two to four years. And President Karzai has said the
Afghan government expects the transition process to be
complete by the end of 2014.
But let me be clear—this refers to the Afghan gov-
ernment taking lead responsibility for security. The
international community will remain engaged in Af-
ghanistan beyond 2014. And Australia will remain en-
gaged. There will still be a need for Australians in a
supporting role. There will still be a role for training
and other defence cooperation. The civilian-led aid and
development effort will continue. And we will continue
to promote Afghan-led re-integration of former insur-
gents who are willing to lay down their arms, turn their
backs on terrorism and accept the Afghan constitution.
We expect this support, training and development task
to continue in some form through this decade at least.
Our mission in Afghanistan is not nation building.
That is the task of the Afghan government and people.
With international aid and development, we will con-
tinue to help where we can, but entrenching a function-
CHAMBER
23
ing democratic Afghan state could be the work of a
generation of Afghan people.
The new international strategy is comprehensive. It
is focused on:
• Protecting the civilian population—conducting
operations together with the Afghan National Se-
curity Forces to reduce the capability and will of
the insurgency.
• Training, mentoring and equipping the Afghan
National Security Forces—to enable them to as-
sume a lead role in providing security.
• And facilitating improvements in governance and
socioeconomic development—working with the
Afghan authorities and the United Nations to
strengthen institutions and deliver basic services.
The new strategy promotes efforts towards political
reconciliation. It also includes a greater focus on part-
nership with Pakistan to address violent extremism in
the border regions that threatens both Pakistan and Af-
ghanistan. And the new international strategy is well
resourced.
The international strategy is implemented by a com-
bined civilian and military effort under the Interna-
tional Security Assistance Force, ISAF. This involves
47 troop-contributing nations, working alongside a host
of international bodies and aid agencies, with and at
the invitation of the Afghan government, and under a
United Nations Security Council mandate—a mandate
renewed unanimously just this month.
This coalition includes many longstanding friends
and allies of Australia, including the United States and
New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, Canada and
France. Singapore and Korea, among other Asian coun-
tries, contribute. And several Muslim countries are in-
volved, including Turkey, Jordan and Malaysia.
At the Asia-Europe meeting, I spent some time with
Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib. I was particularly
struck by what he said was one of Malaysia’s most im-
portant contributions to Afghanistan: doctors—doctors
who are Islamic women. They are able to work with
Afghan women as few foreign medical professionals
can.
We are part of a truly international effort in Afghani-
stan. To ensure the new international strategy can be
delivered, last December the United States committed
to a military and civilian surge in Afghanistan. The
elements of this surge are now reaching full strength.
Once fully deployed, this will take coalition force
numbers to roughly 140,000. US forces on the ground
have tripled since early 2009. The total force now has
the resources required to deliver a comprehensive in-
ternational strategy focused on counterinsurgency and
designed to deliver transition.
24 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
3. Australia’s contribution to the international ef-
fort
Australia’s involvement makes a real difference in
Afghanistan. The government supports the new inter-
national strategy and we have supported the surge.
Australia has increased our troop contribution to Af-
ghanistan by around 40 per cent in the past 18 months.
We now have around 1,550 military personnel de-
ployed in Afghanistan. Our military force is comple-
mented by around 50 Australian civilians.
Earlier this year we took over leadership of the Pro-
vincial Reconstruction Team in Uruzgan to spearhead
our civilian efforts, and increased our civilian com-
mitment to Afghanistan by 50 per cent. In fact since
2001 we have committed over $740 million in devel-
opment assistance to Afghanistan.
The main focus of the Australian effort in Afghani-
stan is directed towards Uruzgan province. It is a diffi-
cult job. Uruzgan province lies in southern Afghani-
stan. Around half a million people live there. It has
roughly the population of Tasmania, across an area
about one-third the size of that state. Nearly three-
quarters of the land is dry and mountainous. Most of
the people live in a few major valleys alongside the
rivers. Subsistence agriculture and poppy farming are
the main ways to earn a living. Water is a precious and
highly contested resource and overall economic pros-
pects are poor. School attendance is low, and illiteracy
is high. In fact, the female literacy rate in Uruzgan is
less than one per cent. For men it is only 10 per cent.
In Uruzgan, Australia’s soldiers and civilians are
part of Combined Team-Uruzgan. Combined Team-
Uruzgan is a new structure that brings the military, po-
licing, political and development elements of our assis-
tance under a single command. The team is com-
manded by a senior United States military officer,
Colonel Creighton, and the senior civilian official is an
Australian diplomat, Mr Bernard Philip. I met them
both during my visit. We are lucky to have them.
The team is built around an Australian-US partner-
ship, with contributions from a number of countries
including New Zealand, Singapore and Slovakia.
Combined Team-Uruzgan was established following
the Dutch drawdown in August. We appointed our sen-
ior civilian representative to lead the Uruzgan Provin-
cial Reconstruction Team and coordinate all ISAF ci-
vilian activities in the province.
The government has worked closely with the Dutch
and US governments to ensure Australian soldiers and
civilians have every support they need through the pe-
riod of this handover. I welcome the Dutch govern-
ment’s decision to extend their attack helicopter sup-
port. This is part of a broader ISAF contribution from
which Australia and all contributing nations benefit.
Australia’s contribution of two Chinook helicopters is
part of this.
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
While in Afghanistan and Europe I met with: Colo-
nel Creighton, commanding Combined Team-Uruzgan;
General Petraeus, commanding the International Secu-
rity Assistance Force; NATO Secretary-General Anders
Fogh Rasmussen; and the then caretaker Prime Minis-
ter of the Netherlands, Jan Balkenende. In each of
these meetings, I emphasised the strength of my view,
my government’s view, that continuing this support
was necessary. So I was glad to receive confirmation of
the Dutch decision after my return.
Our advice is that the planned arrangements for sup-
port following the full Dutch draw-down will see
equivalent support to Australian forces. While lighter
in absolute numbers, the American support available to
our forces is agile and highly effective in pursuing our
common mission. In addition, Afghan forces in
Uruzgan have increased from around 3,000 to 4,000 in
the past 18 months, meaning total troop numbers are
larger now than when Dutch forces were present. As
Prime Minister, I am satisfied that our troops have the
right support. And, of course, this is a matter we keep
under constant review.
In Uruzgan, Australia’s substantial military, civilian
and development assistance focuses on:
• training and mentoring the Afghan National Army
4th Brigade to assume responsibility for the prov-
ince’s security;
• building the capacity of the Afghan National Po-
lice to assist with civil policing functions;
• helping improve the Afghan government’s capacity
to deliver core services and generate income-
earning opportunities for its people.
As well as our efforts supporting transition in
Uruzgan, Australia’s special forces are targeting the
insurgent network in and around the province, disrupt-
ing insurgent operations and supply routes. While not
part of Combined Team-Uruzgan, the Special Opera-
tions Task Group contributes to the province’s security.
Our Special Air Service Regiment and our commando
regiments are the equal of any special forces in the
world. They will make a difference to the outcome of
the war.
I know all this is very dangerous work for our sol-
diers and civilians. I give you my firm assurance that
this government will listen to the professional advice
and provide every necessary protection and support for
our soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan. Over the past
12 months the government has announced more than
$1.1 billion for additional force protection measures
for Australian personnel. This includes upgraded body
armour and rocket, artillery and mortar protection. The
continuing and evolving threat posed to our troops by
improvised explosive devices has seen us pursuing the
right technologies to ensure our troops can detect these
devices. Our troops are protected through hardened
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
vehicles and other protective equipment. And, of
course, we will keep these force protection measures
under constant review.
I have spoken to Air Chief Marshal Houston, the
Chief of the Defence Force. I have spoken to Major
General Cantwell, our national commander on the
ground. Their advice to the government is that, as we
stand today, our force structure—the number of troops
on the ground and the capabilities they have—is right
for our mission in Afghanistan. As Prime Minister, I
want to be very clear. The government receives the
advice on this decision. But we take the responsibility
for this decision.
There has also been some debate about the rules of
engagement for our soldiers in Afghanistan. Of course
I will not comment on the particular case which is sub-
ject to current proceedings. I do, however, want to re-
spond to some of the public comments on the rules of
engagement generally. Those rules of engagement are
properly decided by the government. They are consis-
tent with the guidance provided by General Petraeus.
They are consistent with the International Security As-
sistance Force’s rules of engagement. They are consis-
tent with the international law of armed conflict. As
with troop levels, we take the advice, but we take the
responsibility.
As Prime Minister, let me say I believe the rules of
engagement are robust and sufficient for the mission in
Uruzgan. The Australian Defence Force is a profes-
sional military force, respected in Australia and around
the world. They operate under strict rules of engage-
ment. That is what they do. Rules of engagement are
central to the mission of the ADF. Strict rules of en-
gagement are in the long-term interests of our troops in
the field. But, more than that, they are the difference
between us and our enemy. As much as anything, what
marks us from them is precisely this. We respect inno-
cent civilian life. I believe Australians would not have
it any other way.
4. What progress is being made nationally
The new international strategy is in place. The ele-
ments of the surge to support the strategy are now
reaching full strength. The hard work is underway. We
will monitor events closely. The NATO Lisbon summit
in November will assess further progress against the
International Security Assistance Force’s strategy.
Mapping out that strategy will be a key focus of the
summit. Afghanistan is a war-ravaged country that
faces immense development challenges.
While the challenges are huge, I can report tentative
signs of progress to date. The Afghan National Security
Forces are being mentored and trained. The Afghan
National Army reached its October 2010 growth objec-
tive of 134,000 ahead of schedule, and the Afghan Na-
tional Police is also ahead of its October 2010 goal of
109,000. The Afghan National Army is becoming in-
CHAMBER
25
creasingly capable and supporting coalition operations
more effectively. Nearly 85 per cent of the army is now
fully partnered with ISAF forces for operations in the
field. Afghan forces are now in the lead in Kabul.
The ability of the Afghan government to provide
services to its people is being built. In primary educa-
tion, enrolments have increased from one million in
2001 to approximately six million today. Some two
million of these enrolments are girls. There were none
in 2001. Nothing better symbolises the fall of the Tali-
ban than these two million Afghan girls learning to
read. In basic health services, infant mortality de-
creased by 22 per cent between 2002 and 2008 and
immunisation rates for children are now in the range of
70 to 90 per cent. In vital economic infrastructure, al-
most 10,000 kilometres of road has been rehabilitated
and 10 million Afghans now have access to telecom-
munications, compared to only 20,000 in 2001.
With the increase in troop levels, the fight is being
taken to the insurgency. Insurgents are being chal-
lenged in areas, particularly in the south and east of the
country, where they previously operated with near-
impunity. Indeed, much of the increase in violence this
year is attributable to the fact that there is a larger in-
ternational and Afghan presence pursuing the insur-
gency more aggressively.
In Afghan politics, efforts are being made to con-
vince elements amongst the insurgents to put down
their arms, to renounce violence and adopt a path back
to constructive and purposeful civilian life. And al-
though we know democracy remains rudimentary and
fragile, Afghanistan has a free press and a functioning
parliament. Last month parliamentary elections took
place—elections with real and widely publicised prob-
lems—but elections did take place. And the interna-
tional community is working closely with Pakistan.
Stability in Pakistan, and the uprooting of extremist
networks that have established themselves in the bor-
der regions and terrorised both countries, is essential to
stability in Afghanistan.
Let me turn more specifically to the progress of
Australia’s mission in Uruzgan. Our Mentoring Task
Force is training the 4th Brigade of the Afghan national
army. The 4th Brigade, as our commanders on the
ground told me during my visit, is proving to be an
increasingly professional force, fighting better and be-
coming more capable at conducting complex opera-
tions. The brigade’s recent efforts in successfully com-
pleting a series of resupply missions between Tarin Kot
and Kandahar has demonstrated improving capability.
Since late last year, they have moved from observing
and participating, to planning and leading these activi-
ties. The brigade also recently provided security for
parliamentary elections in the province.
Our civilians are making a difference in Uruzgan.
Our AFP contingent has trained almost 700 Afghan
26 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
national police at the police training centre for the
province. It has also contributed to the successful tar-
geting of corrupt officials and the tackling of major
crimes. We are helping build local services. In Tarin
Kot township, business is flourishing at the local ba-
zaar. There are two bank branches, crime is down, and
the town is becoming a genuine provincial trading hub.
I visited our trade training school on the Tarin Kot
base, which is turning out 60 graduates each quarter in
basic trades such as plumbing and carpentry, most of
whom then contribute to reconstruction and develop-
ment in the province.
Our aid to Uruzgan is increasing to $20 million in
2010-11. Already we have supported 78 school recon-
struction projects and the disbursal of over 950 micro-
finance loans. We have helped refurbish the Tarin Kot
hospital and assisted the rehabilitation and operation of
11 health centres and 165 health posts. We are con-
structing a new building for the Department of Energy
and Water, and building a bridge crossing to connect to
the Tarin Kot-Chora Road. Our civilians are working to
build capacity within the provincial administration and
support the reach of central government programs into
Uruzgan.
We are taking the fight to the insurgency. On the
C130 flight into Afghanistan, a map of Uruzgan spread
out on his knees, our national commander Major Gen-
eral John Cantwell briefed me on our work in the field.
Valley by valley, we are gradually making a difference
to security. He told me about the agriculture-rich Mira-
bad Valley, a strategically important region with a his-
tory of violence in recent years, just to the east of the
provincial capital Tarin Kot. Mirabad was dominated
by the Taliban for the last seven years. It was a place
where the provincial government had no influence. But
over the last two years the Afghan security forces, in
partnership with the Australian, Dutch and now US
forces, have methodically expanded their permanent
presence into the valley with the establishment of three
patrol bases. Insurgents, clearly threatened by the
growing reach of the Afghan national army, attacked
the bases unsuccessfully a number of times during con-
struction. Now the bases, combined with two nearby
outposts, will allow the Afghan national army to better
protect Mirabad’s communities. Mirabad is far from a
success story yet. Progress in development, education
and democracy is yet to begin. But in the specific mis-
sion we have given our forces in Uruzgan—to train the
Afghan national army to take the lead in security—we
see progress being made. That is the beginning of tran-
sition.
General Cantwell also told me about Gizab. It is an
isolated township in the far north of Uruzgan province
that had long been a Taliban safe haven, and one which
the Taliban used as a base to launch attacks against the
Chora district. Earlier this year, in April, the local
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
community rose in revolt against the Taliban and, with
the assistance of Afghan and Australian forces, cap-
tured the local Taliban commander and expelled the
insurgents. Gizab now has a local police force and a
new district governor, and the provincial government is
beginning to make its presence felt. Again, it is a place
where progress is painstaking and incremental, where
there will be new setbacks and where consolidation is
needed. Again though, it is a place where the seeds of
transition are being sewn.
I have shared some positive stories about the begin-
nings of transition. There are many stories which are
not so positive. We should be realistic about the situa-
tion. Progress, even in security, is highly variable
across the province. Any gains come off a low base.
Any advances made are fragile. The challenges that
face Uruzgan, and Afghanistan, are immense. But I do
believe we should be cautiously encouraged.
5. The future of our commitment to Afghanistan
Australia’s national interests in Afghanistan are
clear. There must be no safe haven for terrorists. We
must stand firmly by our ally, the United States. There
is a new international strategy in place—focused on
counterinsurgency, designed to enable transition. Aus-
tralia’s commitment to Afghanistan is not open-ended.
We, along with the rest of our partners in the Interna-
tional Security Assistance Force, want to bring our
people home as soon as possible. The Afghan people
want to stand on their own. But achieving our mission
is critical to achieving both these things.
The international community and the Afghan gov-
ernment are agreed on a clear pathway forward. The
Kabul conference in July welcomed the Afghan gov-
ernment’s determination that the Afghan National Se-
curity Forces should lead and conduct military opera-
tions in all provinces by the end of 2014. At the up-
coming NATO/ISAF Summit in Lisbon the interna-
tional community and the Afghan government will as-
sess progress against the international strategy. Map-
ping out the strategy for transition to Afghan leadership
and responsibility will be a key focus of the summit.
Transition will not be a one-size-fits-all approach. It
will be conditions based. It will happen faster in some
places and slower in others. It will be a graduated
process, not an event or a date. There is no ‘transition
day’. International forces will be thinned out as Afghan
forces step up and assume responsibility. In some
places the transition process will be subject to setbacks.
We need to be prepared for this. My firm view is that
for transition to occur in an area the ability of Afghan
forces to take the lead in security in that area must be
irreversible. Our government will state this as a simple
fact in discussions before and at Lisbon. We must not
transition out, only to transition back in.
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
In conclusion
Australia will do everything in our power to ensure
Afghanistan is never again a safe haven for terrorists.
Australia will stand firm in our commitment to our
alliance with the United States. The international
community understands this. Our enemies understand
this too. I believe that the new international strategy,
backed by the surge in military and civilian forces, is
sound. Protecting the Afghan people, training the Af-
ghan security forces, building the Afghan government’s
capacity, working with the international community,
Australia is making a real difference in Afghanistan.
Delivering on the international strategy in Uruzgan
province—and supporting transition in the country as a
whole.
Australia will not abandon Afghanistan but we must
be very realistic about the future. Transition will take
some years. We will be engaged through this decade at
least. Good government in the country may be the
work of an Afghan generation. There will be many
hard days ahead, but I am cautiously encouraged by
what I have seen.
I believe this debate is an important one for our peo-
ple and our parliament. That is why today I announce
as Prime Minister that I will make a statement like this
one to the House each year that our Afghanistan in-
volvement continues. This will be in addition to the
continuing ministerial statements by the Minister for
Defence in each session of the parliament.
Attending funerals for Australian soldiers is the
hardest thing I have ever done. And it is nowhere near
as hard for me as it is for the families. There is nothing
I can say to change their long walk through life without
a loved one. A loved one, lost for our sake. In the ulti-
mate, I can promise them only this: we will remember
them. Their names are written on the walls of the War
Memorial in Canberra. Their names are written in the
walls of our hearts. When I think of these Australians
we have lost in Afghanistan, I think of the Australian
poet James McAuley’s words:
I never shrank with fear
But fought the monsters of the lower world
Clearing a little space, and time, and light
For men to live in peace.
I know the professional soldiers of the Australian De-
fence Force are proud people. They offer their lives for
us. They embrace wartime sacrifice as their highest
duty. In return, we owe them our wisdom. Our highest
duty is to make wise decisions about war. I look for-
ward to the deliberations of this parliamentary debate
on Afghanistan. I hope we do our duty as well as they
do theirs. I present my statement.
Mr STEPHEN SMITH (Perth—Minister for De-
fence) (4.05 pm)—by leave—I move:
CHAMBER
27
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be sus-
pended as would prevent Mr Abbott (Leader of the Opposi-
tion) speaking for a period not exceeding 36 minutes.
Question agreed to.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposi-
tion) (4.05 pm)—May I begin by congratulating the
Prime Minister on her statement and expressing the
hope that I can do equal justice to this important cause.
This Afghanistan debate matters. It matters to the fami-
lies and the friends of the dead and wounded. It matters
to every Australian who is concerned about the wider
world and our role in it. And it matters to our coalition
partners who are looking for reassurance that others
will still do some of the heavy lifting in the struggle
against Islamist extremism. It is right that the parlia-
ment should now debate our commitment, first, be-
cause something as grave as a serious military cam-
paign should be justified to the parliament; second,
because our major coalition partners have been rethink-
ing their own troop numbers and their campaign objec-
tives; and, finally, because the increased tempo of mili-
tary operations has almost doubled Australian combat
deaths in just four months.
Compared to the United States’s 80,000 troops, Brit-
ain’s 10,000 and even Canada’s 2,800, Australia’s mili-
tary commitment is relatively modest. Still, our 1,550
soldiers have the lion’s share of security responsibility
in a province that has long been the Taliban heartland.
Twenty-one combat deaths and 152 combat injuries so
far make this our most serious fight since Vietnam, and
Afghanistan has been the central front in the most im-
portant civilisational struggle of our times.
This is also a critical time in Afghanistan itself. The
Karzai government is probably the best available
amalgam of local legitimacy and concern for human
rights, but it is hardly a model of incorruptible effi-
ciency. The American-led military surge of the current
fighting season has challenged the insurgency but at a
very high price in coalition casualties. After nine years
of inconclusive fighting the risk is that the PR war will
be lost at a time when the ground war is finally starting
to go better. Immediately at stake is the cause for
which those 21 Australians have given their lives. Ul-
timately at stake is the West’s ability to assert itself
against deadly threats before they have materialised
into another September 11 style atrocity or something
even worse.
This debate should honour the Australian battle
casualties so far. We owe it to those who have died to
remain confident that the cause has been worthy of
their sacrifice. Even so, this debate is not just about
them; it is also about the 10 Australians who died in the
World Trade Centre, the 88 killed in the first Bali
bombing and the eight killed in other acts of Islamist
terrorism. Our soldiers are in Afghanistan because ter-
rorists train there, ultimately targeting innocent people,
28 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
including Australians. It is true that the fall of the Tali-
ban in the retaliation following September 11, 2001,
ended al-Qaeda’s sanctuary in Afghanistan. These
days, terrorists are as likely to have trained in
neighbouring Pakistan or in the Horn of Africa as in
southern Afghanistan. Even so, the return of the Tali-
ban government would swiftly restore that country to
its former position as terror central.
At nine years and counting, compared to just six
years for World War II, the Afghan campaign has lasted
for what seems like an eternity, but it is not a conven-
tional war. It is not a war against a government but
against the violent manifestations of a pernicious ide-
ology. A case could doubtless be made for relying on
stand-off weapons to suppress any renewal of terror
bases, like the no-fly zone that used to be enforced
over Northern Iraq. It may not be very effective in
stopping organised terror and plenty of Afghani civil-
ians could be killed in misdirected air strikes but, at
least in the short term, fewer coalition soldiers would
die.
Cruise missiles and drones, though, cannot make the
case for democracy. They cannot make the case for
pluralism and they cannot make the case for the uni-
versal decencies of mankind. In a way that even the
smartest weapons cannot, soldiers on the ground can
distinguish between people who are hostile and those
who are not, between those who may not themselves
accept Western customs but have no particular axe to
grind against us and those convinced that the Western
way of life is a satanic perversion. If properly trained
and supported, soldiers on the ground can be peace-
makers as well as war fighters. They can be builders as
well as warriors. Trying to keep Australians safe from
terrorism does not just mean killing terrorists; it means
engaging with societies that may otherwise be terrorist
breeding grounds.
Australia’s mission in Afghanistan is still to sup-
press the threat of terrorism. It is still to be a reliable
member of the Western alliance, but it is also to help
build a society where merely to be different is not to
risk death. By resisting those who would impose on all
a particular version of Islam our soldiers are asserting
the universal right to a society where women are not
discriminated against, dissent is not a capital crime and
religion is more a reproach to selfishness than an in-
struction manual for everyday life. That young Austra-
lians should die, even for the best of causes, is tragic
beyond words. The idea, though, that an end to Austra-
lian involvement would inspire the lion to lie down
with the lamb or swords to be beaten into ploughshares
is, at best, wishful thinking. A premature end to our
involvement would tell the Americans and the British
that Australia is an unreliable ally and a fairweather
friend. It would tell the Afghani people that our com-
mitment to human rights is more rhetorical than real
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
and certainly does not extend to protecting them where
we can. It would announce to the world that very little,
certainly not the protection of the weak or the promo-
tion of what is right, is worth a significant price in Aus-
tralian lives.
No country should lightly commit its armed forces
to combat and a democratic electorate would almost
certainly punish any government that did. Still, a coun-
try that was not prepared to defend itself against an
aggressor could hardly be taken seriously. And, if self-
defence is justifiable, might not the defence of others
be even more so? War should never be glamorised or
idealised but might there not be at least some nobility
of purpose to a military campaign defending other
people from their persecutors? We should not forget
that the military expedition to East Timor, for instance,
was to stop defenceless people from being brutalised. It
is hard to see the moral difference between our military
campaign there and the campaign in Afghanistan just
because the latter is yet to come to a more or less satis-
factory conclusion. Of course, to qualify as a just war
under the traditional ethical theory there had to be a
reasonable chance of success. Time and time again, as
we know, Afghanistan has proved impossible to con-
quer but that, it needs to be stressed, is not our aim.
Our objective is not to impose a foreign government
and an alien system. Rather, it is to help the Afghani
people choose their own government as freely as they
can without, as far as possible, the coercion of warlords
or the indoctrination of religion.
Our objective is to allow Afghans to choose what
they think is right for them. The Taliban’s objective is
to impose what it regards as the one right system. We
are prepared to accept choices by the Afghan people
that we do not like. Our key stipulation is merely that
Afghanistan should never again become a base for in-
ternational terrorism. By contrast, the Taliban, and
even more so their al-Qaeda allies, insist that their ver-
sion of Islam is not only right for Afghanistan but
mandatory for the whole world. It is not enough for
them to execute women in a sports stadium for moral
transgressions; this is the law by which they think the
whole world should be ruled.
So it is not the coalition partners that are the imperi-
alists in this conflict; it is the Taliban, actually, through
their alliance with al-Qaeda, who are trying to impose
their values on others and who are at least as dependent
on foreign fighters as the Karzai government. However
imperfectly, it is the West that is fighting for free-
dom—that of the Afghan people, no less than our own.
It is the Islamist extremists, not us, who are fighting to
export a particular set of values and to impose a par-
ticular set of judgments on everyone, wherever they
can find a hold.
Twenty-one homes around our country ache with
loss because the Australian government has deployed
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
our armed forces against a serious enemy. As things
stand, each bereaved family knows that the Australian
people respect their loss and value their sacrifice. We
have honoured their deaths by continuing their cam-
paign. How worth while would these deaths now seem
if the Australian government were to abandon the
cause for which they died? How would those families
feel if the Australian government were to conclude that
the task is now too hard or should never have been un-
dertaken in the first place?
No rational government should enter or sustain any
conflict without first counting the potential costs. But
to enter a fight and then to abandon it before the objec-
tive is secured would mean that we had never really
been serious, or that we had been defeated in the field
of battle—and this is not a judgment that anyone
should wish to see pronounced against our country.
Afghanistan may never be a Western style pluralist
democracy. In any event, it is for Afghans, not for out-
siders, to re-engineer their society from the feudal to
the modern. Our broader mission is merely to foster
effective governance, at least by Afghan standards, and
to ensure that Afghanistan never again hosts training
camps for international terrorism.
Australia’s particular mission in Oruzgan and the
surrounding provinces is to strike at active Taliban
units and to mentor the Afghan army’s 4th Brigade into
an effective military unit, loyal to the central govern-
ment. In much of Afghanistan, but certainly in
Oruzgan, there have recently been signs of progress in
the struggle with the Taliban. A year ago coalition
forces tended to emerge from their bases, engage the
enemy and then withdraw, leaving the countryside
largely under Taliban influence. Under General Pet-
raeus, coalition forces have adopted the clear hold,
build and transfer approach to counterinsurgency that
characterised the successful surge in Iraq.
In Oruzgan the number of military outposts has
roughly doubled in the past 12 months. Supported by
Australian forces, the 4th Brigade has been clearing
Taliban fighters from the rural areas and from the vil-
lages between forward operating bases, leaving police
detachments in each village with sufficient army sup-
port to maintain military superiority. The thinking is to
give local people the on-the-spot security they need if
they are to resist an insurgency accustomed to wiping
out whole families for cooperating with the govern-
ment. Australians on the ground report that local peo-
ple tend to prefer coalition forces to the Taliban, for
whom their way of life is usually insufficiently Islamic.
For understandable reasons, though, villagers need to
be convinced that their protectors will outstay the in-
surgency, which is why these operations are increas-
ingly Afghan led.
Progress is necessarily family by family, village by
village, district by district. It is dependent upon the
CHAMBER
29
effectiveness of Afghan security forces and the ability
of provincial governments to provide tangible pros-
pects of a better future. None of this can be relied
upon. Even the Oruzgan provincial capital is too dan-
gerous for Westerners to travel around without heavy
escort. Still, fragile advances seem to have been made.
In Oruzgan the recent national election was largely
undisrupted. In a remote part of the province, as the
Prime Minister earlier reported, several villages have
recently driven out the local Taliban and invited sup-
port from coalition special forces.
This northern summer, it seems, higher casualties
have been more the result of an aggressive coalition
campaign than a more effective insurgency. In Oruzgan
the Taliban’s greater use of roadside bombs seems to
be the result of its reduced ability to move openly
around the country. This is nothing like victory, of
course, but it is success. It has been dearly bought,
which is why it should not lightly be squandered. It
should be built upon, not jeopardised by new doubts
about the mission and its sustainability.
Australia can never be as committed to the welfare
of the Afghan people as they are themselves. If our
mission is to succeed, at some stage it has to be locally
sustainable. The assessment of the Australians on the
ground is that turning the 4th Brigade into a military
force capable of independently securing and defending
Oruzgan will take two to four years. The new govern-
ment in Britain has recently stated its intention to end
combat operations within five years. And the Obama
administration has said that it expects the Afghan gov-
ernment to start to take the leadership in security mat-
ters from the middle of next year. The coalition’s
commitment to Afghanistan cannot be entirely open
ended, because that would excuse the Afghan people
from taking responsibility for their own country. It
would amount to a Western takeover. On the other
hand, withdrawal dates cannot be set in stone either,
because that just reassures the Taliban that they can
win by waiting.
The best exit strategy is to win. For Australia, this
means completing the task of training the 4th Brigade
and playing our part in ensuring that the central gov-
ernment is capable of containing and defeating the in-
surgency. There may be other tasks that Australia can
or should usefully perform once the current ones are
completed. After all, washing our hands of Afghanistan
and its problems once two to four years are up would
hardly be a sign of friendship. A commitment to Af-
ghanistan that lasts longer than this would hardly be
excessive if it continued to deny sanctuary to an impe-
rialistic version of Islamist extremism. The contain-
ment and the defeat of the Taliban would be worth a
drawn-out struggle if it helped to keep the world safe
from September 11 scale terrorism and helped to pre-
vent neighbouring Pakistan, a nuclear armed state un-
30 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
der enormous pressure, from itself succumbing to
Islamist extremism. An enduring security commitment
to Afghanistan seems improbable but no more perhaps
than Britain’s more or less solo effort over 12 years to
overcome the Malayan emergency or Australia’s budg-
etary commitment to PNG, which is still continuing 35
years after independence.
With Afghanistan it is easy to construct gloomy sce-
narios around the theme of a Vietnam-style quagmire,
with the conclusion that it is better to withdraw now
before a bad situation gets worse. The underlying as-
sumption is that Western forces are largely provoking
the problem rather than helping to contain it. Austra-
lians on the ground, for instance, report that local ex-
tremists can easily stir up trouble by starting rumours
that coalition forces are burning the Koran. Difficult
though it undoubtedly is, such a volatile situation is
unlikely to be calmed by the withdrawal of those forces
most committed to building civil society and least
likely to be themselves involved in atrocities.
No less than the advocates of continued commit-
ment, the advocates of withdrawal must be ready to
accept the consequences of their policies. It would be
impossible to advocate in good faith an Australian
withdrawal without also supporting the departure of
Western forces more generally. But a premature with-
drawal would almost certainly mean the collapse of the
Karzai government and its replacement by the Taliban
or the further rise of local warlords. Either way, Af-
ghanistan would again risk becoming a base for terror-
ism with the daily life of its people further impover-
ished. In turn, greater disorder in Afghanistan or a re-
stored Taliban government would almost certainly
cause further unrest in Pakistan, with the prospect of a
renewed military autocracy or an Islamist takeover.
For the West, a regional meltdown could be a far
worse outcome than an indefinite military commitment
in just one country. Fewer Western military casualties
in the short term could mean far more local deaths and
the prospect of escalating unrest spreading into the
Subcontinent, the Middle East and Central Asia. If the
king had never been deposed, if Russia had never in-
vaded, if America had not armed the mujaheddin, if
Pakistan had not aided the Taliban, if the West had not
been preoccupied in Iraq, the prospects in Afghanistan
might be less daunting and the choices less difficult.
Still, serious countries and their leaders have to deal
with the world as it is, not as they might prefer it to be.
There are no quick solutions and no painless options
here; there is just the near certainty that the wrong
choice will be disastrous and the likelihood that the
harder choice now will turn out to be the better choice
for the future.
The opposition supports the Australian govern-
ment’s commitment to Afghanistan and the Western
commitment more generally. In farewelling Australian
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
forces to Iraq some years ago, the then leader of the
Labor Party said that he supported the troops but not
their mission. Now, as then, the Liberal and National
parties have no need for tortuous distinctions. We fully
support Australian troops and we fully support the mis-
sion on which they are engaged.
Bipartisan support for the Afghanistan commitment
is not the same as agreeing that nothing could possibly
be improved. Our support is for the commitment, not
necessarily for every aspect of the government’s han-
dling of it. As supporters of the commitment, the oppo-
sition have a duty to speak out if there is evidence that
it could be made more effective. As well, we have a
duty to stand up for Australian soldiers if there is a
possibility that the government might have let them
down. My colleague Senator Johnston recently asked
the government to consider sending some extra forces
to Afghanistan after a soldier blamed the death of his
colleague on a lack of fire support. After assurances
from senior commanders on the spot, the opposition
accept that our troops have sufficient artillery, attack
helicopter, fighter-bomber and light armoured vehicle
support.
Since the mid-year withdrawal of most of the Dutch
forces in Oruzgan, Australian troops’ responsibilities
have increased. Our forces are now stretched, but not,
it seems, beyond their capacities. The progress they
have made is real but fragile. The coalition accept sen-
ior commanders’ assessment that the current force
strength is sufficient for current tasks. Without access
to the latest security assessments and the comprehen-
sive military advice, it is impossible for the opposition
to be prescriptive about troop numbers or force compo-
sition. Our role is to question in good faith what the
government is doing rather than to try to run the coun-
try from the wrong side of the parliament.
Given the pressure our forces are under and the im-
portance of their mission, we would never be critical of
a government that erred on the side of giving them
more support. In fact, given the critical stage of the
military campaign and the capabilities of Australia’s
armed forces, our instinct would be to do more rather
than less. Still, we accept that this is necessarily the
government’s call, not ours. On my recent visit senior
officers said that additional helicopters would make
their military operations more effective, and the Prime
Minister seems to have agreed after her own visit that
more helicopters would help and that others might
supply them.
Senior officers also said that it was important to be
able to detain suspects beyond 96 hours, as the Ameri-
cans and the British can. I asked the government to
consider giving our forces in Afghanistan the ability to
detain terror suspects for at least as long as authorities
already can here in Australia. As well, the government
should regard our commitment to 1,550 personnel in
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Oruzgan as an average to be maintained over time
rather than as a limit that is never to be exceeded re-
gardless of the military situation on the ground.
Supporters of Australia’s commitment should under-
stand the dauntingly difficult operational environment
in which our troops work. Our soldiers are no more
infallible than those of other nations. Even so, no-one
should rush to condemn the actions of soldiers under
fire operating in the fog of war. The opposition has not
criticised the laying of charges against three Special
Forces soldiers over an incident in which civilians
were killed, because there have to be rules, even in
war. Our questions were for the government, which
needs to explain what it has done to ensure that these
soldiers have the best possible defence. After all, a
government’s commitment to our soldiers should be no
less strong than our soldiers’ commitment to our coun-
try.
In his official history book, Charles Bean said of the
soldiers of the 1st AIF:
What these men did nothing now can alter. The good and
the bad, the greatness and the smallness of their story will
stand. Whatever of glory it contains nothing now can lessen.
It rises, as it will always rise, above the mists of ages, a
monument to great-hearted men; and, for their nation, a pos-
session forever.
Our troops in Afghanistan are worthy successors of the
original Anzacs. I regret that I have not yet been able to
observe them on operations, but I have seen them at
their base in Tarin Kowt and at services for the fallen,
here in Australia. John Howard began the recent tradi-
tion of prime ministerial attendance at military funer-
als. Please, God, that our casualties do not mount to the
point where this is impracticable, because it is a poign-
ant reminder of the dangers into which we have sent
them. We should weep for the fallen—good tears—for
those who have served their country in the company of
their mates.
It is right that every member of parliament should
now have the chance to reflect on Australia’s mission
in Afghanistan. War should never be popular, but it can
sometimes be right. Our job is not to persuade people
to like the work our armed forces are doing, but they
need to understand it and be able to support it. Winning
hearts and minds in Australia is no less important than
winning them in Afghanistan if this mission is to suc-
ceed. Our challenge this week is to be just as effective
and professional in our tasks as our soldiers are in
theirs.
Mr STEPHEN SMITH (Perth—Minister for De-
fence) (4.32 pm)—I move:
That the House take note of the document.
I seek the leave of the House to move a motion con-
cerning suspension of standing and sessional orders.
Leave granted.
CHAMBER
31
Mr STEPHEN SMITH—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be sus-
pended to allow Mr S. F. Smith (Minister for Defence), Mr
Robert, Mr Rudd (Minister for Foreign Affairs), Ms J.
Bishop (Deputy Leader of the Opposition), Mr O’Connor
(Minister for Home Affairs), Mr Keenan, Mr Wilkie and Mr
Bandt to speak on the motion for 20 minutes and for all other
members to speak on the motion for 15 minutes.
Question agreed to.
The SPEAKER—The question is that the House
take note of the document.
Mr STEPHEN SMITH (Perth—Minister for De-
fence) (4.34 pm)—On indulgence, and not prejudicing
my right to take part in the debate, for the convenience
of the House could I indicate that it is proposed that the
debate commence tomorrow morning after the intro-
duction of bills and, possibly, one or two first speeches.
I thank the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Stephen Smith) ad-
journed.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Asylum Seekers
The SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the
honourable member for Cook proposing that a definite
matter of public importance be submitted to the House
for discussion, namely:
The failure of the government to implement effective bor-
der protection policies.
I call upon those members who approve of the pro-
posed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the
standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (4.35 pm)—I rise on this
matter of public importance, particularly following the
very sombre presentations that we have just been wit-
ness to. The issues are not, of course, unrelated. The
Prime Minister today in question time talked about
what she believes is just a slogan on behalf of the coa-
lition, which is ‘Stop the boats’. These are three words
that those on the other side in this chamber do not like
to hear. They do not like to hear the words ‘stop the
boats’, because when we talk about stopping the boats
it reminds the government of their pathetic failure in
the realm of border protection, in the realm of immi-
gration policy and in the realm of their own resolve to
address these issues rather than just be passive recep-
tors of what has come our way and what they have
drawn to our shores by their own policies. It reminds
them also of the success of the coalition government.
We implemented measures that did indeed stop the
boats—not a slogan but a result.
So, when the government stand in this place and ac-
cuse the coalition of sloganeering on the issue of stop-
ping the boats, they need to remind themselves that the
boats did indeed stop under our government, and, sec-
32 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ondly, that under their government the boats have
started to come again. This is why we find that the
government never, ever like to hear the three words
‘stop the boats’—because they represent policy success
for the coalition and policy failure for the government.
Since the border protection regime was softened by
this government when it came to government in 2007
and dismantled the strong regime that was put forward
by the coalition and operated throughout the years we
were in government, this is what has been removed.
Permanent residency for those who seek to come to
Australia illegally by boat is back on the table as a ma-
jor incentive and a major outcome being sought by
those who come and, more importantly, by the people
smugglers who sell this product, literally, and, we es-
timate, made at least $25 million from that business
last financial year.
Universal offshore processing is no more in this
country, and certainly third-country processing is in no
way near ever being achieved by the government.
Boats are no longer returned where the circumstances
permit. Special deals are done with asylum seekers. We
had the Oceanic Viking at around this time last year.
This government did a special deal which we are still
seeing the results of today, with 17 of those who were
on the Oceanic Viking now in a centre in Romania. It
was confirmed in Senate estimates today that a number
of those have been rejected by Canada and the United
States. Yet this government has a deal that will see
them brought to this country, no doubt, by the end of
this year if the resettlement outcome is not found. The
reason they will be here is that the government will not
commit to reassessing their refugee status, even though
it put in place an asylum freeze which said that condi-
tions in Sri Lanka had changed. More than a year later
it is not prepared to reassess their claim. It is going to
ensure that these people are resettled in Australia for no
more reason than that they had a special deal with
Kevin Rudd.
We have seen the absurd proposals like the asylum
freeze used as an election fix in an attempt to provide a
substitute for genuine and proven policy. The result of
all this is that 174 boats have arrived, with 8,295 peo-
ple on those boats. In this calendar year alone there
have been 106 boats, with 5,260 people—that is more
than 500 a month. Since the election we have had 20
boats, no less—946 people. We have seen now more
than 5,000 people in an overworked, overstressed and
falling apart detention network. We have seen riots, we
have seen demonstrations and we have had instances of
self-harm. We have seen only 75 people—we believe
from the Senate estimates process—repatriated to their
home country having failed the refugee status assess-
ment.
More than 700 children are being detained, and I
will come back to that matter in a moment. More than
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
5,000 people are in detention today. This is the record
that the government must be held to account for. If they
believe that their policies are more humanitarian, more
compassionate, then they must justify why they think
so, with 174 boats and almost 8,300 people getting on
those boats and risking their lives. We believe around
175 have tried and failed and perished at sea. They
must justify the more than 700 children being detained
and the average stay in detention today: 71 per cent of
those in detention are staying more than three months,
compared with around 30 per cent just six months ago.
The government must explain to the Australian people
how that is a better way, particularly when you com-
pare it against what they inherited: only 21 children
being detained, none of whom arrived by boat; 449
people in detention, only four of whom had arrived by
boat. We had a situation where only nine boats in total
arrived between 2002 and 2007, with fewer than 300
people on those boats. That is an average of fewer than
50 per year, and at the moment we have an average of
more than 500 per month.
This is the comparison that the government need to
justify to the people of Australia. Prior to the election
the government awoke to a political crisis, but they did
not awake to their policy crisis. ‘Commander’
Bradbury, the member for Lindsay, was dispatched to
Darwin for a photo opportunity with the Prime Minis-
ter. The member for the landlocked—apart from the
Nepean River; it does extend all the way along the
Hawkesbury and eventually gets to the sea—
Commander Bradbury went to Darwin for the photo
op. That was policy action No. 1 as the government
would describe it. The East Timor plan was cobbled
together. A night phone call was made to East Timor
and announced at the Lowy Institute the next day as an
election fix. Labor, for a short while—while the elec-
tion was underway—stopped implying that people who
had views about strong border protection were racists,
but we saw that same commentary start to emerge from
those opposite as we got to the other side of the elec-
tion. They were happy to go back to the implications
and the impositions of motives of people on this side of
the House, but during the election they were quite
happy to make sure they were saying something quite
different.
We also had significant denials from those on the
other side of the House during the campaign on the
expansion of the onshore detention network. On the
other side of the election this has been the policy re-
sponse from the government: another 3,000-plus beds
announced for onshore expansion in this country, on
the mainland. There is still no proposal for an East
Timor processing centre, let alone an opening date.
And, as I said, 20 boats have arrived, with 946 people
on them. The detention population has increased to
over 5,000. More beds, as the opposition leader said
yesterday and as I said yesterday, will not stop more
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
boats. The government understand that. They under-
stand that, because they have tapped the mat when it
comes to dealing with the issue of stopping the boats,
as I said in my opening statement. The government
have basically said: ‘What we will do is open more
beds and let more people out, because more people are
going to come.’ That is the response of the govern-
ment.
Let us consider what they have done in Curtin, for
example, in managing these issues. A master plan was
developed in July for 1,800 people. It was first devel-
oped on 27 July or thereabouts by the department for
1,800 people. It was drawn up by the department. The
Prime Minister denied the very existence of this master
plan during the election—the same master plan that is
now being implemented. I show you here the plan,
which is noted as revision C. Department officials con-
firmed to me when I was at the Curtin detention centre
last week that this was a bona fide master plan of the
government that was developed. The departmental of-
ficials were also very helpful because they showed me
the most recent revision of that plan. And guess what?
Both plans accommodated 1,800 people. They both
accommodated three stages: stage 1, stage 2 and stage
3. But, if we go to what the Prime Minister said during
the election, she said, in an article in the Canberra
Times on 19 August:
No work is planned at Curtin other than the work which is
underway now and which has already been publicly dis-
closed, publicly released and talked about.
So what work was underway? Well, an immigration
department official was very helpful, because she said
to the West Australian on the 18th, the previous day:
There is currently no construction under way beyond the
existing stage—
stage 1—
which can accommodate about 600 detainees.
So there was nothing going on beyond the work for
those 600 places. I was confused very much then when
I got to the Prime Minister’s statements yesterday,
when she said:
The federal budget of 2010 funded a detention centre at Cur-
tin with a capacity of 1,200 places. Less than 1,200 persons
were initially moved in there. However, of course the rele-
vant department took the prudent steps in designing the cen-
tre and putting the infrastructure in place …
I went to the budget, and on page 326 of the budget,
about capital allocation, there was no mention of the
Curtin detention centre at all. So I thought maybe it
was in the July economic statement, where a further
$98 million was produced. It was not there either.
There was no mention, prior to the election, of the Cur-
tin detention centre having a capacity of 1,200 people.
There was nothing going on there, apparently, at the
time of the election, other than for 600 detainees.
CHAMBER
33
Yesterday the government announced a series of
measures to expand our detention network, taking it to
over 3,000. I noticed that Curtin was not in that an-
nouncement for the expansion. So you can imagine my
surprise when I went to Curtin detention centre and
visited stage 3 of the centre with the Deputy Secretary
of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Mr
Bob Correll. I took this photo. It shows the services
works having been installed and constructed for stage
3. So a further 600 beds have had already installed, in
stage 3, services, electrical works, plumbing, drainage
and sewerage. All of this has been put into stage 3, and
indeed you can still see the grader and the dump
truck—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The
member has exceeded—thank you.
Mr MORRISON—You can see that this had been
done just the day before I arrived. So there we have it.
We have stage 3 works underway. They are not stage 2
works; they are stage 3 works.
The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, who
is at the table, yesterday told Sky News that he was
being upfront, he was putting all the things out there
that they were going to develop—and Curtin stage 3
was not on the list. Now the minister has to explain
why he has wasted hundreds of thousands, if not mil-
lions, of dollars on works that he is never going to pro-
ceed with. This may be a minister who decides not to
build a house but to level the site and put all the ser-
vices in. He may be that sort of a minister and be
happy to waste public money. Maybe he should be put
in charge of the BER project, given his success with
GroceryWatch and other things. Maybe he should try
that, because he is clearly happy to put in place stage 3
works and pretend to the Australian people and either
not proceed or waste money.
This is a government that was quite happy to mis-
lead the Australian people on these things before the
election. It was happy to give the implication that East
Timor was going to happen and that there was going to
be no expansion of the onshore detention network—
and all the while you were squirrelling away and put-
ting these things in place. Why didn’t you have the
guts to tell the Australian people that you were going to
expand the onshore detention network and that East
Timor was never going to happen in this term of par-
liament? You still refuse to do that.
On East Timor, in the time available, I make simply
these points. There is no proposal. That was confirmed
by the Indonesians just recently when the minister was
there. Three months later, nothing has happened. There
is not even a proposal. They do not know how many
people it has to accommodate, who can come, whether
families will be involved, what the cost is, who pays
and how long people can stay. And what guarantees
has this government given to the President of East
34 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Timor that those who are staying any more than three
years under this proposal—just as Australia did the
special deal for the Oceanic Viking—will not be given
a guarantee of resettlement here in this country?
By contrast, we have policies that have been proven
to work. We have policies that have shown that we can
once again restore the protection and integrity of Aus-
tralia’s borders and our immigration system. We had
policies in place when we were in government which
dealt with the issues of children in detention which the
Prime Minister today and yesterday shamelessly tried
to appropriate to her own actions. They used the very
provisions we put into the act and then tried to pretend
there were currently children behind razor wire, which
the minister knows has not been the case since 2005.
The Prime Minister knows that. If she did not want to
be disingenuous, there was no need to mention razor
wire. This coalition has a policy that is proven and has
worked. We will restore offshore processing in Nauru
if we are able to form government. We will take the
sugar off the table with permanent protection visas. We
will turn boats back where the circumstances permit.
We have the resolve to do that. We will tighten up the
assessment process to ensure that those who get rid of
their documentation are not going to get refugee status.
We have the resolve to follow this through, because we
have the resolve to stop the boats, unlike this govern-
ment. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER—I remind the House
that clapping is not appropriate in the chamber.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Minister for Immigra-
tion and Citizenship) (4.50 pm)—I welcome this MPI.
When I saw that the member for Cook had lodged this
MPI, I thought: ‘That’s a very good thing, because the
shadow minister gets 15 minutes to talk and we might
actually hear something of substance from the shadow
minister. We might actually hear more than the facile
sophistry that he normally provides in his sound grabs.’
I thought that in 15 minutes he would have to give us
more than, ‘We’d turn the boats back,’ more than,
‘Nauru,’ and more than—my personal favourite and
one of the great own goals of the last election cam-
paign—‘We’d have a boat phone.’ I thought we might
actually hear more from the shadow minister for immi-
gration and it would make a very good change. But,
alas, I was disappointed. Alas, we got 15 minutes of
sound bites from the shadow minister for immigration.
We got the normal shrillness. We got the normal light-
weight performance.
We heard a lot from the member for Cook about the
record of the Howard government. He has put the re-
cord of the Howard government on the table for analy-
sis, so it is appropriate that I respond. They stopped the
boats, he said. They had a strong regime, he said, and
they took permanent residency off the table. They took
permanent residency off the table, the member for
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Cook argued, by using temporary protection visas. The
member for Cook has got himself a little stuck on this
in recent times, as recently as today. He says that tem-
porary protection visas were so important in stopping
the flow of people into this country. He says that they
worked—and he said it just now in the chamber today.
Let us have a look at this. Temporary protection visas
were introduced in October 1999. There were 3,722
unauthorised arrivals in 1999.
Mr Morrison—How many boats?
Mr BOWEN—Here we go again. So it is boats that
count, not people, apparently. That is the argument
from the member for Cook: ‘It doesn’t matter how
many people come, as long as they come on big boats;
we want big boats, not little boats.’ That is the Morri-
son plan: big boats. Now we have it: it does not matter
how many people come. In 1999, we had 3,722 unau-
thorised arrivals. Over the next two years, we had
8,459 unauthorised arrivals. That is the story from the
member for Cook. So in 1999 we had 3,721 and in
2001 we had 5,516. We had 3,721 in 1999, 2,939 in
2000 and then 5,516 in 2001. So temporary protection
visas were introduced and more than 8,000 people
came over the next two years. And the member for
Cook says, ‘But there were fewer boats.’ Well done: we
got bigger boats and more people. I am not sure how
temporary protection visas brought that result about.
Mr Morrison interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The
member for Cook was warned during question time. It
still stands.
Mr BOWEN—The member for Cook said that
permanent residency was taken off the table by the
Howard government through the use of temporary pro-
tection visas. The member for Cook might want to
check the record. He might want to check and see what
proportion of people were granted permanent residency
at the end of their temporary protection visa period.
Dr Emerson—It was pretty high, I think.
Mr BOWEN—The Minister for Trade is right. It
was pretty high: 90 per cent. Ninety per cent of people
on temporary protection visas were granted permanent
residency, so I am not sure that permanent residency
was taken off the table as the member for Cook would
have us believe.
Mr Morrison—It was when they arrived.
Mr BOWEN—So it was temporarily taken off the
table. Maybe that is why they came on bigger boats—
the member for Cook’s grand plan. The member for
Cook was caught out in his little tricky game this
morning on the ABC. He was trying to claim that tem-
porary protection visas reduced the number of people
arriving in Australia by boat. He was caught out in this
claim, and he had to admit that the number of people
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
went up in 2001. He had to admit that, and now he ad-
mits it again today.
Mr Morrison—The number of boats fell.
Mr BOWEN—I am more than happy to happy to
concede to the member for Cook that the number of
boats fell. But what actually counts is the number of
people arriving. I do not really mind whether they
come in big boats or little boats. The member for Cook
tends to get caught up in these things.
I now want to move to the next matter regarding
temporary protection visas, which is the number of
women and children coming by boat. This has been a
matter of some legitimate public discussion over recent
days for obvious reasons. One of the several harsh
elements of temporary protection visas was that they
did not allow family reunions. What did that mean?
That meant that more women and children got on boats
and came to Australia. That was the result of the tem-
porary protection regime. Between 1999 and 2001, the
proportion of women and children among Iraqi and
Afghan unauthorised boat arrivals more than tripled.
Mr Morrison—How many in 2002?
Mr BOWEN—Now he moves to 2002. Temporary
protection visas were introduced in 1999 and the result
was that women and children on boats more than tri-
pled.
Mr Morrison interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Cook
is warned again and is skating on thin ice!
Mr BOWEN—In 1999, 13 per cent of protection
visa applications lodged by Iraqi and Afghan unauthor-
ised boat arrivals were from women and children. By
2001, this had increased to 48.1 per cent. So the mem-
ber for Cook should not lecture me or anybody else in
this chamber about women and children on boats when
the policies which he still advocates for, more than 10
years after the Howard government introduced them,
caused more women and children to get on boats and
come to Australia. Perhaps that is why the opposition
did not oppose the abolition of temporary protection
visas when this government abolished them. Maybe
that is why: they had actually worked out that this was
a policy that had adverse impacts. The member for
Cook seems to deny that they did not oppose the aboli-
tion of temporary protection visas. He might want to
remind the House when they voted against that aboli-
tion; he might want to show us in the Hansard.
The other answer that the member for Cook has to
everything is Nauru. If you ask the member for Cook
what the meaning of life is, he says, ‘Nauru.’ If you ask
the member for Cook whether families and children
should be put in community detention, he says,
‘Nauru.’ If a bell rings, he says, ‘Nauru.’ The member
for Cook’s answer to everything is Nauru. If the mem-
ber for Cook were now in my place as the minister for
CHAMBER
35
immigration, he says that the Nauru detention centre
would be up and running.
There are a few little problems with the member for
Cook’s little analysis. As the member acknowledged to
me yesterday across the chamber—I would say that it
is not reflected in Hansard because it was an aside—
the Nauru detention centre is now largely a school. I
asked him what he would do about the school that is
now being run at the detention centre. He said, ‘We’ll
build another one.’ So not only would he have opened
a detention centre at Nauru by now but he would have
apparently built a school in the last few weeks for the
people of Nauru, which would be a remarkable
achievement. I wonder how much it would cost to
build a school in Nauru as well as open a detention
centre. I thought that I might go back and have a look
at the costings and see how much they built in for the
school. But there were no coalition costings for a de-
tention centre at Nauru released during the election
campaign. The official audit might not have picked that
up.
So we have more little tricky problems for the oppo-
sition—apart from the fact that Nauru does not have a
functioning government; it has been in caretaker mode
since last April. I wonder whether the shadow minister
for immigration on his trip to Nauru had a talk to the
International Organisation for Migration, which ran the
centre on Nauru, and asked them whether they would
be willing to do so again. I suggest that he might want
to do that or maybe talk to the UNHCR about how they
feel about a centre at Nauru to see whether they think it
would be a viable option going forward.
I wonder if the member for Cook will consider a fur-
ther point. His answer to everything is Nauru. At its
peak, Nauru detention centre had 1,200 people. If you
ask him what he would do about detention in Australia,
he says, ‘Nauru.’ But it would only cater for 1,200
people unless the member for Cook is proposing a sig-
nificant expansion.
Mr Keenan—We might actually stop the boats.
Mr BOWEN—Now the member for Stirling comes
in to say that they would stop the boats. The sophistry
extends widely over there. Nauru is the opposition’s
Fantasy Island. It is their answer to everything. You
get your wishes granted if you go to Nauru. The mem-
ber for Cook would like to be Mr Roarke, granting eve-
rybody’s wishes. Maybe the member for Stirling could
be Tattoo, saying, ‘Here come the boats; here come the
planes.’ For them, everything would be okay if they
only had Nauru.
In these debates you have a choice about how you
handle these issues. On the one hand you can go down
the road of shrill press releases, slogans and empty
promises about turning the boats back. You can go
down that road, or you can go down the road of engag-
ing with the Australian people and saying, ‘We are en-
36 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
gaging in a set of complex interactions in our region
about a regional problem.’ You can say, ‘We have a
regional and international enduring problem which
needs a regional and international enduring solution,’
or you can go down the road of the opposition. We
think it does need an enduring international and re-
gional solution, and I suspect that deep down the oppo-
sition agree. They would not be so keen to wreck it
otherwise. They would not be so frustrated that the
government are actually making progress in develop-
ing a regional framework. Their press releases get
more shrill every day as we go down this road. They
get more shrill about the matters of regional frame-
works.
The member for Cook and the member for Stirling,
the great duo over there, put out joint press releases all
the time with their simple answers and their facile solu-
tions. What we say is this: countries around the world
are managing an increase in asylum seekers and Aus-
tralia is no different. In 2009 Australia had an increase
in asylum seekers of 29 per cent over that calendar
year. Other countries have had an increase of over 50
per cent. All countries have experienced these issues.
But I think there is something else going on here. I
think there is something else going on here because
over the last 24 hours the slip-sliding of the shadow
minister has reached new levels.
Mr Keenan interjecting—
Mr BOWEN—It is a big call; I agree with the
member for Stirling. It is a big call, but it is an accurate
call, I think. Yesterday I announced that I would be
using my existing powers—as I said at the press con-
ference, they would be powers that are already in the
act—to move many more children and families into
community detention. This is because I think that in the
vast majority of cases there is a better way of dealing
with families and children in detention.
The member for Cook is the alternative minister for
immigration. If there were a change in government he
would be in my place as the minister for immigration.
So I think the Australian people have a right to know
whether he would use those powers or not. He has been
asked, on my last count, about 30 times over the last 24
hours what he would do. Would he use those powers?
When he started off, his answer was: ‘Nauru. We
would have Nauru, so I would not need to use the
powers.’ That did not really work. Then he decided to
say: ‘This is just a Greens policy. The government has
adopted the Greens policy. It is clearly the Greens pol-
icy.’ That did not really work, so now he is saying:
‘They have adopted the Liberal policy. It is really John
Howard’s policy.’ It was actually that well-known
greenie John Howard’s policy! It cannot be both, as the
Prime Minister said in question time today.
Maybe the shadow minister could just settle on a
better answer and maybe that better answer would be
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
the truth about what the shadow minister would do if
he were in my place. Would he use those powers or
not? Would he release more children and families into
the community or not? But that would take a straight
answer and that would take a bit of thought, something
that the shadow minister has not shown much procliv-
ity to bring to this debate. He brings the sound grabs
and he brings the cheap lines, but he does not bring
much well-considered policy development. Sound
grabs come easy, but sound policy is what is actually
more important.
I have said in the month or so that I have been Min-
ister for Immigration and Citizenship that our detention
system is under pressure.
Mr Morrison—Why?
Mr BOWEN—The shadow minister says, ‘Why?’ I
know it is hard being a shadow minister. I have been a
shadow minister. Here is a little tip. It is a good idea to
read the transcripts of the minister that you shadow. I
have said why several times. I have said that the rea-
sons leading to detention pressures on our system are
the number of arrivals and the increased rejection rates.
Rejection rates of asylum seekers have gone up. That is
a key point because, in the end, the best deterrent for
people coming to Australia is to know that their claims
are vigorously and rigorously assessed and that people
who do not have a valid claim for protection will have
that claim rejected. That is why I make no apologies
for pointing out for an audience which is as interna-
tional as it is domestic that the rejection rate for claims
for asylum from Afghan asylum seekers has increased
in recent times to 50 per cent. That is an important
message. I know some people will criticise me for say-
ing that, but that is the fact and it is important that that
message be told. I have also said that elements like the
High Court case and the pause in asylum processing
for various countries have added to that pressure on our
detention system. I have said that from the beginning. I
have said that there are steps that need to be taken to
expand our detention centres. I made further an-
nouncements about that.
The shadow minister has made all sorts of outra-
geous claims. He said there were going to be 3,000
people at Curtin. He said that during the election cam-
paign. He said there was a secret plan. I invite the
member for Cook to ask me a question in question time
about whether the government has any plans to move
to 3,000 people at Curtin.
Mr Morrison interjecting—
Mr BOWEN—No, you said 3,000. On the day I
made the announcement I said that we were moving
more people— (Time expired)
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (5.05 pm)—The member’s
time has mercifully expired. I have had the misfortune
to listen to the Minister for Immigration and Citizen-
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ship on this and other occasions and his favourite
word—in fact, I do not think he has ever made a
speech without using it—is ‘sophistry’. I think he uses
it because he thinks it makes him sound intelligent.
Funnily enough, it is one of these things where you are
just projecting, because the Minister for Immigration
and Citizenship never has anything available to him
but rhetoric. That was clear today from that contribu-
tion.
He mentioned the Howard government’s record and
he mentioned the coalition plan. I just want to dwell for
a second on the Howard government’s record whilst
we were in office, because we faced a very similar cir-
cumstance where we had an onslaught of illegal arri-
vals in the late 1990s. What happened was that the
government decided that enough was enough and that
they were not going to accept that people smugglers
were going to be the ones bringing people to Australia
and deciding who came to Australia. So they decided
that they would take tough but decisive action to drive
those people smugglers from business. Subsequently,
they did drive those people smugglers from business
and their trade in bringing people down to Australia
illegally ceased.
From the year 2001 onwards we had an average of
three illegal boats arrive in Australia per year. I just
want to go through on a yearly basis what happened
once the government decided that enough was enough
and that they were going to take tough and decisive
action. In 2002 there was one boat arrival, in 2003
there were three boat arrivals, in 2004 there were no
boat arrivals, in 2005 there were eight boat arrivals, in
2006 there were four boat arrivals and in 2007, up to
the point where there was a change of government,
there were three illegal boat arrivals to Australia. That
is the Howard government record, which stacks up
against the record of this government—a government
that inherited a basically solved problem when it came
to people smuggling. The resolve of the Howard gov-
ernment had driven the people smugglers from their
trade. The detention centres were emptying because
there were no new arrivals. Very importantly, there
were only 21 children being detained at that time—
something the government is apparently now terribly
worried about.
Nowhere has the government’s failure been more
apparent than just in looking at the raw figures for
what happened after the Rudd-Gillard government
came to office. They inherited a situation where the
boats had stopped and they decided that it was all right
for them to make changes to the robust system of bor-
der protection that had been put in place by the previ-
ous government. In August 2008 they made those
changes, which weakened the border protection sys-
tem, and of course that gave a green light for the peo-
ple smugglers to go back into their trade. Almost im-
CHAMBER
37
mediately, the results of that were apparent. The people
smugglers smuggled people at an increasing rate, to the
point where we now have over 5,000 people smuggled
illegally into Australia this year alone, and 106 boats
arriving illegally on our shores.
When the government changed there were 449 peo-
ple in detention and, as the shadow minister was say-
ing, only 21 children, none of whom had arrived by
boat. There are now over 5,200 people in detention,
including over 700 children. Australian taxpayers are
out of pocket to the tune of $1.1 billion, and let me
assure you that that is a conservative figure. If you
want to break that down per head of population, it
means that every Australian man, woman and child—
every single Australian—is up for $500 because of La-
bor’s failure to control our immigration system and
protect our borders. This is money that the Australian
people owe directly as a result of Labor’s failure, and
that failure has ramifications for every single Austra-
lian.
We have just had an election in this country which
returned the Labor Party to office, although, as we
have seen, it did not return them to power. During the
election campaign, Labor perpetrated a very serious
deceit on the Australian people. They pretended that
they had a solution to this border protection crisis and
they pretended that they were going to do something to
stop the flow of illegal arrivals. Every Australian will
now understand that they were wilfully misled by the
Labor Party during the election campaign.
The Labor Party have known for months that
Christmas Island has been full to overflowing and that
the onshore detention centres are full beyond capacity,
yet they waited until after the election to announce that
they were going to massively expand our onshore de-
tention network. This backflip was outrageously justi-
fied by the Prime Minister yesterday in her saying that
she wanted to take children out from behind razor wire.
This is the Prime Minister of an administration under
which, when they came to office, there were 21 chil-
dren held in detention, and of course none of them
were being held behind razor wire. The Prime Minister
fully knows this, and she understands that these
changes were made by the previous government in
2005. It is a complete distortion and fabrication, which
again shows that there is no untruth that is beneath this
Prime Minister if she senses political advantage.
It also begs the question why—if the Prime Minister
and her minister feel so strongly about children in de-
tention—it has taken them three years to do anything
about it. We had the minister running around yesterday
saying that he was very happy to have this debate, that
he was very happy to talk about children in detention.
Of course, there is absolutely no evidence that for his
three years as part of the previous government he ever
raised concerns about children in detention, as the
38 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
failed border protection policies of the government
resulted in 700 children being detained.
We all know that this change in policy, this backflip
yesterday, is not about some well-hidden and sup-
pressed belief about the welfare of children. It is be-
cause the government has failed so comprehensively
that our detention centres are now full beyond capacity
and they need to do something to alleviate those pres-
sures. Why is it that those detention centres are full?
Why is it that we have been inundated with this surge
of illegal arrivals since August 2008 onwards? We just
heard it again from the minister and we always hear it
from this government when there are questions about
this issue—that is, international factors that are beyond
their control have resulted in this influx of illegal arri-
vals. I have never heard one shred of evidence that jus-
tifies this. Of course, there is absolutely no evidence
that the international environment has changed signifi-
cantly since 2007. We live in a turbulent world now
and we lived in a turbulent world before.
During the second half of the Howard government
when we drove the people smugglers from their busi-
ness, from 2001 onwards, there was a war in Afghani-
stan, there was an ongoing and vicious civil war in Sri
Lanka and there was an existing conflict in Iraq. Yet
during that time, because of the tough and decisive
policies of the Howard government, they managed
within the framework of a turbulent international situa-
tion to say to the people smugglers that Australia was
closed for business.
Labor talk about international factors as justification
for their failure, but there is not one shred of evidence
to justify that proposition. They ignore what the rest of
us know and what the rest of Australia knows, and that
is that the latest influx of arrivals—the tsunami of ille-
gal boats that we are experiencing in Australia—is a
direct result of the weakening of our border protection
system in August 2008.
This government has failed in what is one of the
most basic duties of a Commonwealth government—
that is, to control our immigration system and protect
our borders. Because of that failure they are exposing
the vulnerable victims of this insidious trade to the
great danger of making this journey across the sea. The
shadow minister referred to the loss of life that we
know of, and there is anecdotal evidence that a lot
more vessels have been lost making this perilous jour-
ney. Those lives are lost because they are encouraged
to make this perilous journey by the weakness of this
government and the inability of this government to do
something serious to drive the people smugglers from
this trade.
If you are a people smuggler you rely on your ability
to sell a product, and that product is permanent resi-
dence in Australia. You also rely on the confidence of
would-be customers for that product in your ability to
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
get them to Australia. When the government in Can-
berra shows resolve and says, ‘No, enough is enough;
we’re not going to accept that we don’t control our
immigration system,’ the people smugglers, who are
very sophisticated criminal networks, will understand
that Australia is no longer a soft touch and that they
can no longer ply their trade, and pretty soon they will
be forced out of business. The government in Canberra
could do this if it were prepared to follow the policy
prescription that we have been advocating in opposi-
tion and that we will pursue when we are returned to
government. It is a policy prescription that has been
used in the past to address this issue: a return to a form
of temporary protection visa and the resumption of
offshore processing. Of course, we have a willing can-
didate within our region, Nauru, which would be happy
to host immigration detainees within the facility that
already exists on Nauru. The coalition would also turn
the boats back as appropriate. I see that the government
ridicules this suggestion. (Time expired)
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (5.15 pm)—I find this
matter of public importance debate rather sad, I have to
say.
Mr Keenan—Do you? What a shame!
Ms OWENS—Yes, I do. I live in an area of great
diversity and I know a number of people—
Mr Keenan interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The
member for Stirling might get to go and talk to some of
his constituents very soon if he is not careful.
Ms OWENS—who over the last 30 years have
come here as refugees, many of them on boats. I know
families who have been separated from their two-year-
old child by armed men and do not know where she is.
They now live in Australia, and they do not know
where she is. I know a man who, along with his four
brothers and sisters, was granted refugee status. They
are all now citizens, but they are citizens of five differ-
ent countries—they have not been together as a family
for over 10 years. I know a man who had to pick up the
body of his 17-year-old sister, and the description of
her injuries should not even be in a person’s mind as a
description, let alone as a memory. We are, of course,
talking about people here. We are well and truly talking
about people, and as we talk about boats and snipe at
each other I think it is worth remembering that.
I think it is also worth remembering that, in spite of
the differences in the way each side of politics has ap-
proached the issue of refugees and in spite of the bad
record at times of both sides of politics over the last 20
years, as a nation we subscribe to the UN convention
and that nobody is suggesting that we reduce the num-
ber of people we ultimately accept under the humani-
tarian program. We have been accepting around 12,000
people—give or take a few—for quite a few decades,
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
and we have done it well. As I understand it, neither
side is talking at this point about reducing the number;
we are simply sniping at each other about how the
people got here. So I think we should just take a step
back and recognise that the things we agree on are es-
sentially the key issues here and that we do actually
agree on a great deal.
We as a nation have had had moments of great no-
bility in this debate as well as some terrible moments.
We have had times when the greater characteristics of
humanity have won the day and times when our less
noble characteristics have won the day. There was a
time during World War II when we, like many coun-
tries in the world, turned back boatloads of Jews; we
told them to go back to Germany. We all did that, and
after that time we—along with many nations—decided
that we would never let that happen again. We were
one of the nations that fought hard to establish the UN
Convention. It was established in 1951, and we took
12,000 refugees from Eastern Europe quite soon after-
wards.
Then there was the time in the 1970s under the lead-
ership of Malcolm Fraser. He is not a person I have a
great regard for in many areas, but I have a great re-
gard for him in this area. He was the person who led
Australia through a time when we received one boat
from Vietnam every eight days for over a year and a
half. Malcolm Fraser led this nation by saying, ‘We
will not fear this; we will accept this and we will han-
dle this,’ and we did and we did it well. The Vietnam-
ese refugees who live in my community and no doubt
in yours are great Australians, and they were our first
boat people.
There have of course been times when we have not
been as noble as that. Again, we on both sides of poli-
tics have had moments when we have not been as
compassionate and generous as we could have been. I
believe that we can afford to be generous in this. I be-
lieve that we can afford to allow our more noble char-
acteristics to surface in this argument, because I know,
as you know, that the number of refugees Australia
takes every year is achievable and supportable and that
we have been doing it for a long time. We have been
taking around 12,000 refugees on the humanitarian
visa, and relative to the rest of the rest of the world the
number of refugees is actually very, very small. When
people who are broken as a result of war, of violence,
of torture and of fear have fled their country and
sought another place and arrived on our shores by
plane or by boat or via resettlement, decent people
have put out their hand out to help.
I believe we can afford to be decent, because the
number of people coming to our shores is actually rela-
tively small. There are 45 million displaced people in
the world at the moment, and about 15 million of those
are refugees. Less than one per cent of those will be
CHAMBER
39
resettled in Third World countries, and Australia is one
of a handful of countries that allow the resettlement of
people from a third country. By the way, my calcula-
tion of that figure of 15 million refugees is that, for
every 2,500 of them, one tries to get to Australia by
boat in our heaviest year—one in 2,500 tries to get to
Australia.
Mr Keenan—And they take the place of somebody
who could have come here legally.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Stir-
ling has had his turn.
Ms OWENS—We have had surges and drops in the
number of people coming to Australia by boat for as
long as we can remember. We had a surge in the 1970s
with the Vietnamese, we had a surge in the 1980s, and
then it dropped again. Then we had a surge in the
1990s, when there was a war in Iraq and people fleeing
the Taliban, and then we had a drop again. We have a
surge again now because of conflict in Afghanistan and
Sri Lanka. The key thing that drives people fleeing to
somewhere is that they are fleeing from somewhere.
When there is a war, people flee; when peace breaks
out, they stop fleeing. So when war breaks out there is
a surge in people moving around the world. There is a
surge in people moving around the world everywhere,
by the way—it is not just here. This notion that the 45
million displaced people in the world are all looking to
come to Australia is just not accurate. As I said, of
2,500 people who qualify as refugees, one seeks to
come to Australia by boat in our heaviest year.
Imagine if we hosted the number that Pakistan hosts:
1.8 million refugees fled across the border from Af-
ghanistan into Pakistan—1.8 million. Now that is a
refugee problem. Mind you, it is a bigger problem for
the refugees who have lost their families and their
homes and are living with grief and unbearable loss
and sometimes physical trauma as well. Syria has 1.1
million Iraqi refugees, making it the second largest
refugee-hosting country in the world. Iran has 980,000
and there have been times when Iran has hosted over
three million Afghanis. Jordan has 500,000, Chad
330,000, and Tanzania 321,000, and 320,000 refugees
flocked across Kenya’s border. The load from hosting
these refugees, and again members opposite know this
as well as we do, is overwhelmingly carried by devel-
oping nations—not by Australia by any means but by
developing countries, who hosted nearly 80 per cent of
the global refugee population last year. Forty-nine of
the least developed countries in the world host nearly
one-fifth of the world’s refugees.
We play a very important role as one of about a
dozen countries that accept refugees from Third World
countries, and it is in the nation’s interest and in our
best behaviour to ensure that the Australian people un-
derstand and respect the value of that refugee program.
40 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The behaviour today and these motions that stir up
fear, suspicion and hate do not serve our interests well.
Mr Keenan—What rubbish! Where do you get your
moral superiority from?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Stir-
ling is warned!
Ms OWENS—In 2009 we received 6,170 applica-
tions, which is 1.6 per cent of the 370,000 applications
received across the industrialised nations. We were
ranked 16th and 21st overall.
There are some great myths about how policy influ-
ences the number of boat arrivals, and the minister
dealt with some of them. But the last time that Af-
ghanistan was at the top of the list of refugee source
countries was in 2001, when we also had a surge here.
Afghans lodged asylum claims in 39 of the 44 industri-
alised countries last year. It is incredibly common.
Worldwide there were 380,000 asylum claims lodged
in industrialised countries. The United States received
50,000 applications, Canada 30,000, the European Un-
ion 250,000, and France over 40,000 asylum claims.
The UK and Germany had 30,000 claims each. Other
EU countries received more than 10,000 asylum claims
each and Australia received 6,000 claims. The increase
in the number of claims occurred all around the world.
Virtually every industrialised country had an increase
in claims in the same way that Australia did. It is just
common sense. People flee to somewhere when they
flee from somewhere, and they flee to other industrial-
ised countries in far, far greater numbers than they flee
to Australia. Again I would like to remind the House
that we generally agree on the numbers of refugees that
we should be accepting and that we are today talking
about some of the most disadvantaged and broken peo-
ple that you can imagine, and I would ask us to respect
that. (Time expired)
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (5.25 pm)—Madam Deputy
Speaker Burke, it is a real pleasure to see you back in
the chair and in that role, a role you undertook very
well in the last parliament, if I may say so. I rise to
speak today on this MPI, the terms of which are ‘the
failure of the government to implement effective bor-
der protection policies’. Nowhere has this been felt
more than in my Adelaide Hills community when the
bombshell hit yesterday. There was an announcement
by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration
and Citizenship, without any consultation whatsoever,
of a plan to build an immigration detention centre at
the current defence housing at Inverbrackie, near the
Woodside army barracks in the Adelaide Hills. It will
now be used by the immigration department as a new
detention centre, highlighting very much the failure of
this government’s management of Australia’s borders.
From the scant information available, it seems that
the properties at Inverbrackie, of which there are 90,
will be used for up to 400 people consisting of family
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
units, as described by the Prime Minister in her press
conference yesterday. That is about as much informa-
tion as we have on the public record, other than the fact
that the Adelaide ABC was told yesterday afternoon by
an immigration official from South Australia that the
approximate cost of the upgrade would be $10 million.
We do not know what that will pay for. We know they
have to improve the houses, because defence has said
in the last five or so years that those houses are unfit
for defence personnel. Presumably it will pay for some
security arrangements because currently the village at
Inverbrackie has open access and so forth. So we know
nothing about the details other than that by December
this year, a mere six weeks away, there will be 400
people moving into the current houses there.
That shows that this is a government who has com-
pletely lost control of this issue, and the people who
will feel this the most are those who live in my com-
munity. It appears to be an emergency measure taken
with no plans for the future. This is, of course, an un-
fortunate and inevitable result of Labor’s mismanage-
ment of Australia’s border protection. But the most
outrageous aspect of this decision and the announce-
ment yesterday was the total lack of consultation with
the community and people concerned. My office was
inundated yesterday afternoon, this morning and this
afternoon with concerned constituents wanting to get
some detail about how this is going to affect our area.
But what chance do they have when the Labor Premier
of the state, a man who used to be best mates with the
former Prime Minister, was not even told until the last
minute? Labor Premier Mike Rann this morning told
ABC radio that he had received a phone call from the
minister an hour before the announcement, telling him
what has happened. There was no choice, no discus-
sion, no opportunity to consult—just an instruction
from the minister. Premier Rann said:
I got a phone call … about an hour before the announcement
was made by Julia Gillard essentially telling us what was
going to happen. We just want to know what it actually
means in terms of the impact on the local community, the
impact on police, teachers, schools and health facilities …
So do I, Premier Rann, and so does my community.
Not even the Labor Premier was able to ask important
questions like: how will the local primary school cope?
What about the already stretched health services in the
Adelaide Hills? What about the law enforcement ser-
vices? What other impacts on community services will
there be? There is no indication from the government
on how long they intend to operate this facility or at
what cost. I suspect the government actually has not
got a clue.
The reality is that this will put additional pressure on
already stretched services in the Adelaide Hills. The
federal government is obviously in such a panic that it
appears not to have considered at all how the commu-
nity will cope. So blatant was the snub by the Prime
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Minister that even when she was in the Adelaide Hills
on Sunday, appearing in Aldgate at the CFS to get a
nice photo opportunity, she did not utter a word of this
decision. She was 17 kilometres from Inverbrackie on
Sunday and she could not be bothered—she did not
have the balls or the ability—to tell the Adelaide peo-
ple what she was planning to do.
It appears that the Adelaide Hills is good enough for
the Prime Minister to have a photo opportunity but is
not good enough for her to ask the community what
they think of having 400 asylum seekers placed into
detention in the middle of the community. Maybe it
should not surprise South Australians, because this
Prime Minister has decided that South Australia is ex-
pendable to her political needs. No-one should ever
forget that this Prime Minister walked into South Aus-
tralia in the middle of the election campaign and prom-
ised to do whatever it took to fix the Murray-Darling
Basin. She said she would implement every last finding
of the basin plan, yet last Sunday she walked away
from that promise. So the fact that the Prime Minister,
after playing on the fears of South Australians when it
came to water during the election and is now walking
away from that, would decide without consultation to
build a new detention centre in the Adelaide Hills
should come as no surprise. This Labor government is
rotten to the core and has lost complete control of Aus-
tralia’s borders.
It is actually worth asking every South Australian
member and senator what they are doing to stand up
for South Australia on these issues. Where is the Minis-
ter for Finance and Deregulation? She let South Aus-
tralia down in the last term of government on the water
issue. Where does she stand on this issue? Where is the
Minister for Mental Health and Ageing? He is a new
appointment but is not standing up on this issue. Where
is the most famous minister, the member for Adelaide?
I noticed a hard-hitting interview with her in the Ade-
laide Independent today, but where does she stand on
these issues? The famous faceless man Senator Farrell
has been appointed the Parliamentary Secretary for
Sustainability and Urban Water but has not said any-
thing about it yet. Maybe he has been busy looking
after some state Labor matters which are taking up a
bit of time at the moment. There has been nothing ei-
ther from my good friend the member for Kingston or
her counterpart and sidekick, the member for Wake-
field.
The problem that these members have is that they
are led by a Prime Minister who has given up repre-
senting South Australia and our interests. There are
some in my community who have very strong views
from both perspectives on this issue—and that is un-
derstandable. My personal view on the issue is, as it
has always been, that people who get onto these boats
are not to blame. I would prefer a situation where these
CHAMBER
41
people never got on the boats in the first place. How-
ever, we must have a strong border protection regime
that ensures an orderly process is in place to manage
our refugee intake. That is why I very much support
our shadow minister’s approach on this issue. I thought
he gave an outstanding speech earlier in this debate.
Australia needs a border protection system that en-
sures this issue is managed efficiently and effectively.
This government has failed to do so and my commu-
nity has to deal with that failure. My dispute is not with
the people who get on these boats. My dispute is with
the Labor government over its mismanagement of this
issue. This, of course, is the government that promised
during the election to create a solution to fix this issue,
led by the Prime Minister and her sidekick, Com-
mander Bradbury. However, since that ill-fated visit to
the Darwin customs command centre—the member for
Lindsay, from Western Sydney and with no responsi-
bilities on the issue, went up there to get a political
kick out of it—we have seen nothing but further failure
and backing away from the promises that they did
make. I wonder whether the member for Lindsay will
highlight to his constituents in his first post-election
newsletter exactly what the new policy of the Labor
Party is on this issue.
There are some in this parliament—we just heard a
speech along with these lines—who like to claim moral
superiority on this issue. However, this does not sway
us, and nor should it, from the belief that we should
stop people getting on these boats as much as we can in
the first place. That is a much more humane way of
dealing with this very difficult issue. Weakening our
border protection laws and encouraging people smug-
glers back into business is not the most humane way to
deal with the issue. Australia should continue its proud
history of accepting genuine refugees, but the issue
must be managed in an efficient and effective manner,
as it was under the Howard government and as it has
not been during the first three years of the Rudd-
Gillard government. Spending another $10 million on a
short-term solution in my community without consulta-
tion with the state Labor government, the local council
or the community is not the answer. Making a major
decision without consulting the community on the ef-
fects on their schools, health services, law enforcement
and transport needs is also not the answer, but it is of
course the modern Labor way. This government stands
condemned for its complete mismanagement of Austra-
lia’s borders and the effect it is having not only on the
people who are in these detention centres but on the
broader Australian public. This detention centre should
not proceed.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (5.35 pm)—In re-
sponse to the member for Mayo, while this side of the
House is clearly talking about going forward on impor-
tant reform in the Murray-Darling Basin, I wish him
42 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
the best of luck in his party room as he tries to get re-
sults for his electorate. I think he will have a very hard
road to travel. I wish him the best of luck and I hope he
is able to get the coalition parties, both the National
Party and the Liberal Party, on the same side, but I
think it will be very difficult for him. Let us talk about
the matter of public importance on border protection
that is before the House today. I always enjoy these
debates when those on the other side are in denial and
say that this is not a global problem or a regional prob-
lem but just a problem for Australia. The member for
Stirling said there was no evidence and wanted evi-
dence. I will provide him with some evidence.
First of all, Afghanistan is the source country for
most irregular maritime arrivals to Australia and, ac-
cording to the UNHCR, in 2009 Afghanistan became
the main country of origin for asylum seekers in indus-
trialised countries worldwide. The last time Afghani-
stan was at the top of this list was in 2001, when there
was a surge of boat arrivals under the Howard govern-
ment. Afghans lodged asylum claims in 39 out of 44
industrialised countries worldwide, and Afghanistan
was in the top five source countries in 17 of 27 Euro-
pean Union states last year.
That is just a little bit of evidence that suggests that
this is not just a problem in Australia; indeed, that this
is a global problem. While the opposition denies this
and continues to make out that this is a government
problem and a failure of policy, the government, on
this side of the House, is getting down to the business
of actually looking at this problem both internationally
and in a regional way. The opposition is not interested
in this. We saw this during the election. They do not let
facts get in the way of a good slogan, or indeed a good
boat phone—or bat phone. During the campaign I al-
ways imagined there would be a big red phone, similar
to the one that Commissioner Gordon used in the early
series of Batman, and Tony Abbott would sit on the
other end of this phone and when a boat came near our
shores the commander or someone on the boat would
ring him, and Tony Abbott would answer and make a
decision on his bat phone.
So the opposition had this big thought-through pol-
icy for the election, and even in this new parliament
they have failed to really look at this problem in a con-
sidered way; in a way that considers both regional and
international aspects. In sharp contrast, the government
is looking at this in a very serious way. I commend the
new Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Minis-
ter Bowen, who has held talks already with senior offi-
cials of the Malaysian government and has had some
very constructive meetings in East Timor. Those on the
other side feign interest by saying they do not want
people to get on boats, and that is exactly what we on
this side of the House also do not want. We do not
want people smugglers to profit from innocent people,
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
and we do not want people smugglers to make profit
from desperate situations. So what are we doing? We
are looking at a regional framework. We are working
with our regional partners and looking at how we
might disrupt this people smuggling and take away this
very dangerous route to Australia.
The opposition are not so interested in these people.
They have made it quite clear that they want to turn the
boats around and that, in doing so, it will not endanger
the lives of any of the refugees on the boats and it will
not endanger any of our personnel! Of course it will
not do that, say the opposition. But we know that it
will. Turning boats around has serious consequences.
In fact, if the opposition were truthful about this issue
they would recognise that, while the Howard govern-
ment pretended to be strong on this, it did not turn any
boats around after 2003. But this continues to be their
simplistic solution. They are not looking at this as ei-
ther a regional or a global problem.
This government is working with its neighbours to
establish a regional protection framework, including a
regional processing centre, because we believe it is the
most effective and sustainable way for our region to
remove the incentive for people to undertake the dan-
gerous sea voyages to Australia that put their lives at
risk. A regional processing centre will serve to deter
irregular movements to Australia by sea, dealing a se-
rious blow to people smuggling. This is part of our
policy but we are also, as announced by the minister
yesterday, looking at ensuring that children are not kept
in detention. We have seen a bit of hypocrisy from the
other side. In question time today we saw the opposi-
tion trying to spin by on the one hand saying they are
not happy with this announcement that Minister Bowen
has made, not happy that unaccompanied minors and
young children are being moved out of detention, but
on the other hand trying to get credit for the fact that it
was a Howard government policy that the minister ac-
knowledges he utilised.
There does seem to me to be an awful lot of opposi-
tion spin and hypocrisy in this issue. There is no
thought-out, considered policy, and instead we see re-
cycled policies that supposedly worked before, such as
temporary protection visas. As the minister pointed out,
under the temporary protection visas, which were sup-
posed to send so many refugees back home, 90 per cent
of people stayed in Australia on a long-term basis. We
have not really seen a deterrent. We have seen the
Nauru solution, which gets peddled out time and time
again, and once again this is a simple catchphrase from
the opposition to disguise the fact that they do not have
a policy—not a long-term policy that will actually go
to solving this issue; not a long-term engagement with
how we can actually stop this dangerous irregular
travel.
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The opposition, instead of engaging with our re-
gional neighbours, want to go it alone when it comes to
offshore processing. Unlike the opposition, Labor is
committed to getting the right regional centre estab-
lished, with the cooperation of the UN High Commis-
sioner for Refugees, in a country that is a signatory to
the refugee convention. This is really important be-
cause we on this side of the House will not shirk our
international obligations, and we will ensure that peo-
ple are treated decently.
We do want to interrupt people smuggling. That is
our main aim: to make sure that women, children and
families do not get on boats and make this dangerous
voyage. But, if families and children do get here, then
we will ensure—and I thought this was a bipartisan
agreement, but I am sure we will see from the shadow
minister, as the days unfold, a lot of ducking and weav-
ing when it comes to this issue, as we saw in question
time today—that they are not kept in detention.
Let us be clear on this issue: we do have strong bor-
der protection. In fact, the measures announced in the
2010-11 budget build upon a $654 million border pro-
tection and anti-people-smuggling package announced
in the 2009-10 budget. The government has established
a dedicated Border Protection Committee of cabinet to
drive a whole-of-government strategy to combat peo-
ple smuggling.
The government has also created a single point of
accountability for matters to relating to the prevention
of maritime smuggling, with the Australian Customs
and Border Protection Service. As a government we are
taking this issue incredibly seriously. We are looking at
long-term solutions, not short-term slogans; and we are
certainly not looking for a big red boat-phone— (Time
expired)
CONDOLENCES
Private Nathan Bewes
Trooper Jason Brown
Private Tomas Dale
Private Grant Kirby
Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney
Report from Main Committee
Order of the day returned from Main Committee for
further consideration; certified copy of the motion pre-
sented.
Ordered that the order of the day be considered im-
mediately.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—
The question is that the motion moved by the Hon. the
Prime Minister be agreed to. I ask all honourable mem-
bers to signify their approval by rising in their places.
Question agreed to, honourable members standing in
their places.
CHAMBER
43
PARLIAMENTARY RETIRING ALLOWANCES
TRUST
Mr CLARE (Blaxland—Minister for Defence Ma-
teriel) (5.47 pm)—by leave—I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamen-
tary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948, Mr Fitzgibbon
be appointed a trustee to serve on the Parliamentary Retiring
Allowances Trust.
Question agreed to.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH
Address-in-Reply
Debate resumed from 18 October, on the proposed
address-in-reply to the speech of Her Excellency the
Governor-General—
May it please Your Excellency:
We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of
Australia, in Parliament assembled, express our loyalty to the
Sovereign, and thank Your Excellency for the speech which
you have been pleased to address to the Parliament—
on motion by Ms O’Neill:
That the Address be agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—
Before I call the honourable member for Throsby I
remind that House that this is the honourable member’s
first speech, and I ask the House to extend to him the
usual courtesies.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (5.48 pm)—Mr
Deputy Speaker, can I start by adding my voice of
congratulations to those who have congratulated you in
your election to the role of Deputy Speaker.
I start by acknowledging today that I stand today on
the land of the Ngunawal people, the traditional owners
of the land on which we meet, and I thank their elders
past and present.
I have the privilege of representing the people of the
Illawarra and Southern Highlands as the third member
for Throsby and the 1,076th member of the House of
Representatives. I have the honour of succeeding a fine
parliamentarian, a great servant of the Labor Party and
the labour movement, a friend to many here present,
and a great Australian: Jennie George. I also have the
honour of succeeding a fine representative of the peo-
ple of Throsby, Mr Colin Hollis. I pay tribute to their
great contributions to the electorate and to the parlia-
ment.
I am proud of the region where I grew up, the Illa-
warra—the place where I first acquired my interest in
politics. The Illawarra is the place where I learned that
the Australian Labor Party is part of a broad, progres-
sive movement committed to social justice and to eq-
uity. Labor is the political party which recognises that
the problems which confront each generation cannot be
surmounted by individuals working in isolation, how-
ever great the individual. Rather, it is through organisa-
44 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
tion, achieving a collective will, through cooperation
and political leadership, that real and lasting change
occurs. Never was the country in greater need of this
leadership than it is today.
Every significant challenge that we now face as a
nation and in my region requires leadership from this
parliament, leadership to achieve health reform,
achieve education reform and deal with climate change
and leadership in improving our productive capacity by
upgrading our infrastructure and in managing our water
and mineral resources for the benefit of future genera-
tions. I am proud to be a member of the Gillard Labor
government, because it is a government which is com-
mitted to showing leadership and achieving long-term
solutions in the national interest. In addition, Prime
Minister, you stand as an example to my daughter, who
is here in the gallery today. She is only six, but she will
grow up knowing that in this country a woman can
aspire to be the Prime Minister.
I come to this parliament believing that the values
that formed around the dinner table of a large Catholic
family, and on the creaking wooden desks towered
over by the Sisters of the Good Samaritan, and later the
Christian Brothers, will help me to serve my electorate,
my party and my country. I come to this place with the
benefit of a good education, which was sometimes free
and always valued—valued not just as the means by
which I could get ahead but because it helps to bring
more light and understanding, and less fear and confu-
sion, to the world in which we live.
I am the lucky husband to Julia, the most intelligent
and beautiful woman I am ever likely to meet. I am
father to Jessica and Patrick. May my hopes for the
world that they will inherit be the cause for which I
discharge my duties in this place. I am the proud son of
Margaret and Mark, brother to Maree, Luke, Adam and
Amanda. The latter two are not with us in the gallery
today but they are probably, due to the marvels of
modern technology, huddled around a laptop some-
where in the Netherlands, the place they now call their
home. My father, Mark, is not here. He passed away on
Anzac Day in 1996. I am sad at this because he taught
me so much—foremost the hunger to learn and the fact
that there was more than one way to be a father, to be a
husband and to be a male in modern Australia. He was
a man indeed ahead of his time. I am so pleased that
my mother, Margaret, who quite literally broke her arm
to get here, is able to do so, because I am very proud to
say that she was my first and most important role
model. In no small part this is because she raised a
large family with little money and instilled in each of
us a strong set of values and a belief in the importance
of conviction and in the importance of having the cour-
age of those convictions and of persistence and hard
work; the belief that we are put on this earth for a pur-
pose which is greater than ourselves; the belief that we
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
have an obligation to family, to community and to
country.
It is this sense of obligation and purpose that has
governed the decisions I have made in pursuing the
work that I have done. If I am known by others in this
place it would be through my role as the National Sec-
retary of the Community and Public Sector Union, an
organisation I worked for for over 16 years and of
which I am a proud life member. I have had the great
privilege of being a delegate, an organiser, a lawyer
and an official of the Community and Public Sector
Union. In that time I undertook many hard-fought
campaigns against some formidable and well-resourced
opponents, many of them who sit in this place. I cannot
speak more highly of the men and women who are
members of the CPSU. They work in government de-
partments and agencies, in the telecommunications and
broadcasting industries. They are as committed to the
performance of the public services they deliver as they
are to their union. They have stuck by their union when
it was not only unfashionable to do so but when in
many cases it was a job-jeopardising move. To the
hundreds of CPSU men and women who lost their jobs
over the last decade for little other reason than that
they were a union representative, I honour your com-
mitment, and I will do my bit here to ensure that this
country never again recedes into the industrial bigotry
which made that possible.
I was involved in many campaigns which demon-
strated to me and hopefully others that unions were
often the last line of defence when things went really
wrong. For over a decade I campaigned for job security
and dignity in Telstra and in other telecommunications
companies. When a company called OneTel collapsed
owing employees and other creditors millions of dol-
lars, I was very proud that I was able to organise the
young workers and run a campaign to win full repay-
ment of all of their entitlements. I also had the great
honour of spending two years working at the ACTU
and had the great privilege to work with men like
Bernie Banton and Greg Combet, the former secretary
of the ACTU and now Minister for Climate Change
and Energy Efficiency, in a campaign to win justice for
the victims of James Hardie asbestos products.
I think unions are an important part of any free soci-
ety, and in Australia the union movement is probably
the only independent body of men and women that has
the reach, the resources and the inclination to challenge
and question the dictates of power, whether govern-
ment or corporate. However uncomfortable the result
may be for us in this place from time to time, I firmly
believe that Australia is a better place because unions
exist.
Prior to working as a union official I spent many
years as a community worker. It helped me understand
that community workers are the glue that holds much
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 45

of Australia together. I worked as a youth advocate for rainfall and our summer storms. For eons it has also
several years in a disadvantaged region of Campbell- been the passage through which human beings have
town. I worked for several years with children who had travelled in exchange of culture, artefacts and food and
developmental disabilities and later with adults who it is now a passage to the coast.
had suffered spinal cord injury. This was poorly paid The population of Throsby is as diverse as its land-
but profoundly rewarding work. It gave me an insight scape. It is a united nations of people who left their
into the lives of carers who daily struggle to provide birthplace with a small suitcase and hearts full of hope
food, shelter, love and some normality to the lives of that Australia would welcome them and help them
their children and loved ones—usually at great cost to make a better life here. One in five people were born
their own lives and those of the rest of their family. elsewhere and they have quite literally built the cities
During this period of my life time was always of the and suburbs of Throsby.
essence as I juggled full-time work with part-time
Throsby is one of the best places in Australia to live
study. I was proud that I was able to do that, complet-
but it is not yet the best place to work. Unemployment,
ing first an arts degree at a great institution which I will
while decreasing, persistently sits at about 1.5 to two
be advocating for in this place, the University of Wol-
per cent above the national average. Even these figures
longong, and then subsequently a law degree at Mac-
hide the concentrations of unemployment in certain
quarie University.
suburbs and amongst young people.
The boundaries of the electorate of Throsby have
In part due to the massive transformation of its in-
changed since the previous election. It now more
dustry that occurred throughout the eighties and nine-
closely resembles the shape of the electorate when it
ties, at the time that I left school around 20,000 worked
was created in 1984. It stretches from the ocean of the
in the steel works. Now, there are fewer than 10,000. It
Illawarra far into the inland and the Hume Highway.
drives home to me the point that our next economic
The electorate of Throsby overlies the traditional lands
transformation—the restructuring of our economy to
of the Darawal, the Wadi Wadi and the Gundungurra
deal with global warming and to make industry more
people. I pay my respects to your elders past and pre-
sustainable—must draw upon the lessons of the eight-
sent. I thank the present elders for your friendship and
ies and nineties and on the need to assist the companies
support. I thank you for your custodianship of land and
and the individuals to make this challenge.
culture.
There are many priorities that I will talk about—
There is a special place on the road below Robertson
aspirations and things that I will work on with my col-
in the Southern Highlands of NSW that never fails to
league Sharon Bird to advance the interests of the peo-
move me by its beauty. As you approach Macquarie
ple of the Illawarra and the broader Throsby electorate.
Pass the careful driver can pull to the side of the road,
There are two projects that I would like to mention
and from that single vantage point you look east and
briefly. The first is the NBN. It matters because over 67
you can see the suburbs of Albion Park creeping to-
per cent of small businesses in the electorate of
wards the last dairy farms at the foot of Macquarie
Throsby are home based. The NBN is their pathway to
Pass. You can look past the suburbs of Dapto, Warilla,
the capital cities of Australia and the markets of the
Windang, Warrawong and Port Kembla, which is home
world. There are over 20,000 people who daily make a
to the largest integrated steel works in the Southern
passage from Illawarra to the suburbs and the inner city
Hemisphere and the deepest harbour on the eastern
of Sydney in the cause of work and livelihood. The
seaboard. You can see the beautiful Lake Illawarra and
NBN is their opportunity to get off those train plat-
the surrounding suburbs that make up the most densely
forms at five and six o’clock in the morning and spend
populated parts of the electorate.
more time in their communities and their households
If you turn to the west—and you are knocked over with their families. There is much more work to be
by the waft coming from the dairy farm owned by Jim done to rebuild our health and our education infrastruc-
Mauger, a councillor from the Wingecarribee Shire ture, but the advances that have been made over the
Council—you can see the verdant green fields and pas- last three years have made a significant difference, and
tures which surround the iconic towns of Robertson, I intend to build on the great work of Jennie George
Exeter, Moss Vale, Berrima, Bowral, Mittagong and working in partnership with the member for Cunning-
Welby. These were all places of early settlement and ham in the interests of our people.
are now service centres for the surrounding farms, the
In the time that I have left I would like to say a few
mine, the cement works at Moss Vale and, increasingly,
words about my beliefs. I joined the party of Fisher,
the tourist centres. But from where you stand you see
Curtin, Chifley, Whitlam, Hawke and Keating and of
the defining feature of the electorate; it is the rugged
pioneering women like Jessie Street, Susan Ryan, Joan
and beautiful Illawarra Escarpment. It is a segment of
Kirner and Carmen Lawrence, all names well known in
the Great Dividing Range. At first it was a source of
this place. They are men and women of different times
cedar and then coal. It is the cause of our prodigious
but they are joined together by a common belief that

CHAMBER
46 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
this wonderful country with all its wealth and beauty
will only be truly great when the least advantaged of us
have the same life opportunities as those who by acci-
dent of birth enjoy great privilege.
There have always been critics from the Left and
Right who claim that we have drifted from our historic
mission. I take the opportunity of my first speech to set
out the four convictions that lie at the heart of my be-
lief and of Labor values. They are a continuous thread
that ties together the reform objectives of the first La-
bor government, Chris Watson’s, to the Gillard gov-
ernment of this 43rd Parliament. I stand by each of
them.
The first conviction is that we must see the world
through the eyes of working men and women. Let me
say quite clearly: I do not believe that any party has a
monopoly on the vote of Australian working people. A
simple reason for this is that most Australians do not
define themselves solely by their work or their class.
But what I can say with great confidence is that Labor
and I will always approach the task we do in this place
with the needs and aspirations of working men and
women in mind. It has been so since the first band of
Labor representatives entered parliament with the ob-
jective of legislating to bring about a fairer means of
resolving disputes between employers and employees.
It informed our resolve to abolish the harsh and unjust
Work Choices legislation. It is what drives us to re-
move inequality between men and women at work and
elsewhere. It is what has led us to introduce the na-
tion’s first universal paid parental leave scheme. It is
the belief that working men and women, and not just
the privileged few, should have access to a decent re-
tirement that led the Labor pioneers to campaign for an
age pension. This saw federal Labor, in partnership
with the union movement, introduce occupational su-
perannuation. Then, on returning to government in
2007, we increased pensions by over $100 per fort-
night. It now falls to this Labor government to return to
the unfinished business of ensuring that we can extend
compulsory super to 12 per cent of wages. It is our be-
lief that postcode should not be the determinant of des-
tiny—the determinant of access to health and education
and to all of life’s other opportunities.
The second conviction is that we need a cohesive
and progressive economic vision for our country. I be-
lieve that Labor is the party which is committed to
building long-term economic capacity. This commit-
ment stems from the knowledge that it creates jobs and
improves the quality of life of those we represent.
The third conviction is that Australia must have the
confidence to build a nation and the confidence to en-
gage in nation building. One hundred years ago the
first Labor government elected in its own right had the
courage to plan and imagine a transcontinental railway.
Labor remains committed to building more railways in
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
this country, but we also have the courage and convic-
tion to build the railway of this century, the National
Broadband Network, and its liberating effect on our
economy and our lives.
The fourth and final conviction is the belief that any
credible national government must have a credible ap-
proach to national security. In early 1942 Labor’s John
Curtin spoke those famous words:
Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that
Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our tradi-
tional links or kinship with the United Kingdom.
He laid the foundation for a new direction in national
security and defence. What emerged over the next dec-
ade was the ANZUS alliance. It has been the keystone
in our national security architecture ever since.
It is my belief that from Federation to this day it has
been Labor in government which has taken the key
decisions that have defined our nation’s approach to
national security .Whether it was Andrew Fisher when
he founded the Australian navy, whether it was the
governments of Curtin and Chifley, which managed
our nation through its most challenging wartime years,
whether it was that great Labor pioneer HV Evatt, who
was so instrumental in the formation of the United Na-
tions, its treaties and its institutions, or whether it was
Gough Whitlam, who re-established our relationship
with China that we now prosper so much from, it has
been Labor that has taken the tough decisions in ad-
vancing our cause in this region, and we do not retreat
from this territory—it is ours.
Some call us an old party. Implicit in this is a criti-
cism. I wear it as a badge of honour and I say with
pride that I belong to a party that has a set of values
and a tradition that has endured over 100 years of chal-
lenge. We were there at the formation of this parlia-
ment, through two world wars, the Great Depression of
the 1930s and the global financial crisis of 2008-09. It
is true: we are not revolutionaries but reformists. It is
true that we come to this place hungry for reform but
armed with the burning patience that knows that the
perfect must never become the enemy of the good.
Mr Speaker, you have been as patient as I have been
indulgent with the time. Can I conclude by thanking a
few people. Firstly, I acknowledge the great support
that I have had from the former member for Throsby,
Jennie George, and the current member for Cunning-
ham, Sharon Bird, who I know I will form a long and
productive partnership with. I thank the fantastic
branch members of the Labor Party, in particular those
who have joined us from the Port Kembla branch—
Bobby Turner, Ann Martin, and I think I might have
seen Tommy Ward there earlier as well. From the
Southern Highlands Branch, I thank Jan Merriman,
Graham McLaughlin, Phil Yeo, Maurie O’Sullivan, Jo
Babb, and from the Warilla and Mount Warrigal
branches, Phil Rayner and Jim David. As for our cam-
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
paign team, I could not have hoped for better: Anthony
Keenan, Jane Mulligan and Carol Jordan, who have
joined me on my staff, together with Danielle Riber-
gaard and everyone who did the pre-poll.
I am grateful for the great support from my union—
the Community and Public Sector Union. I have seen
many members and officials and former officials in the
audience. I am so proud to be here today to talk of your
cause and your issues, and I will represent your inter-
ests to the best of my ability where I can in this place.
To the CFMEU Miners Division, Bobby Timbs and
Spotty White, who took time from dealing with their
own problems to assist me in my campaign, and to the
MUA’s Gary ‘Hollywood’ Keane, the AWU’s Andy
Gillespie and Wayne Phillips: thank you very much, as
well as to all of the other unions on the South Coast
who assisted me. On the South Coast it is sometimes
hard to separate people who wear a union hat from
those who wear another hat, but I thank Narelle Clay,
Richard ‘Makie’ Davis, Colin and Melissa Markham
and many, many others.
I have already mentioned my mum, my wife and my
family, but I also include Sally Quilter, Michael
Quilter, and Adriane Quilter, and my great friends
Stephen Fitzpatrick, Michael Samaras, Luke Foley and,
last but not least, the electors of Throsby.
It is said that this speech should be the standard
against which my actions will be measured henceforth.
So it should be.
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (6.14 pm)—Mr
Speaker, I congratulate you on your return to the
Speakership, though it was a journey about which sto-
ries will be told. My heartfelt congratulations go to you
from my position as a member of the House and as a
friend. This 43rd Parliament, like all others, is not a
place for the faint hearted. It is hard to get here and it
can be harder to stay here. With success comes greater
difficulty. That is why every person who has the hon-
our to serve here has my respect. We have had an elec-
tion campaign, and you can read all about it from Bar-
rie Cassidy or Mungo MacCallum—I need not have
input into that. I congratulate the member for Throsby
on his address just delivered. I am sure that Jennie
George and Dennis would be very happy with the ad-
dress that has just been given to the parliament. If they
are both watching at this time to see the new member
for Throsby, I wish them all the best and I hope that
Jennie has given up smoking!
I have been returned to this House for the third con-
secutive time, which is not unusual for many but is
unusual for me, having been thrown out of this place
twice before. I really do owe a lot of people for my
health and wellbeing in this place. I have never, ever
thanked my paid staff, because I always thought it was
an indulgence when they are actually working within
the electorate office. But today I want to not only thank
CHAMBER
47
them but also pay tribute to them: Kevin Carmody,
Margaret Burridge, Jennifer Paproth, Ken Mitchell,
Millie McLean and Prue Acheson. I also want to refer
back to staff members of the past and thank Kaye
Clements; my much loved friend Margaret Thompson,
who came back to carry me again on election day with
her partner, Rob Ellis; and Leonie Hemmingway, who
has stayed through the highs and lows. I thank my sup-
porters Neville Goodwin, Cara Carter and Mary
Aldred—great workers and very professional. I say
thank you for the personal and professional support I
received from Gary Blackwood, the member for Nar-
racan, and thank you to Andrew Ronalds, his Liberal
team and the whole of the party, to donors great and
small and especially to those people who hand out
how-to-vote cards, both prepoll and on the day. I know
how grateful every member of parliament here is to
those people, who often can give nothing else but who
give of their time and themselves to go out and do the
job for us on election day. I thank my greatest support-
ers: Bronwyn, Emily, Paul, Evan, Sian and Lauren. I
cannot say what they have done for me. I thank all
those who returned McMillan to the parliament in Lib-
eral hands. Our overall result in Victoria was appalling.
Especially disappointing was that my neighbour in La
Trobe, Jason Wood, lost his seat to Labor and that we
failed to retain Corangamite, Deakin and McEwen. We
have a lot of work to do, but I assure you I will do my
best, along with my party.
I do appreciate this parliament, with its new blood,
its new enthusiasm and its returned enthusiasm—this
place with its new opportunity for people to express
themselves. The member for Throsby, in his first
speech, just talked about the great goals that he has for
his life in the parliament. I am sure every member of
this parliament comes in with those goals, with the op-
portunity to deliver on behalf of their community, their
electorate, their party, their state and this nation. Eve-
rybody out there should understand that we all come
here with that intention, with that drive. I said before
that this is not a place for the faint hearted; it is a place
for those who are prepared to put in a lot of hard work,
a lot of energy.
As the new member for Kooyong sits by me, I am
reminded of my experience of the man who went be-
fore Josh and who—like Jennie George, whom I just
mentioned—through voluntary retirement is no longer
a part of this parliament. I want to talk about my ex-
perience of the man known simply as Petro to his
friends and to his foes. When he was a young child, his
teacher tried to call him Peter, to anglicise his name,
but Petro staunchly refused to answer that teacher until
such time as the teacher called him Petro. Then he an-
swered the question. I think the die was cast then. But
for me what stood out was his political intelligence, his
great ability to focus on an issue disregarding all else,
to think around that focus, to take a thought out of the
48 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
box and to hone the issue just to the substantive—to
dissect the argument into the important and the not so
important.
Remarkable was his high regard for others, for all
members of this House on all sides of the political di-
vide. To many, Petro was confronting, but what I saw
was his heart for the nation’s people and how it soared
beyond self-interest, the head that would not bow, the
knee that would not bend, the insightful mind and in-
tellectual integrity that are shared by so few, and the
often lonely walk into the policy headwind, seemingly
unaffected by personal or political attacks. Few in this
House can claim beneficiaries of their efforts in such a
direct way as Petro can. I am talking in the corporate
sense of the House, not about individual members of
parliament, because I know you all work hard on be-
half of your constituents. There are men, women and
children whose lives were changed for the good, for
the generations, by the persistent personal courageous
conviction of this lone warrior for human rights here in
this Great South Land. He came here to this House at a
time of his choosing. He left this House at a time of his
choosing. Many of his foes did not enjoy the same
grace.
As part of his broader career in the political main-
stream, he was awarded the Alan Missen Award. This
award is all about integrity. You would have to be blind
not to realise that I miss him a little. At the same time, I
know that the future of the seat of Kooyong is in good
hands with this new member and I look forward to his
first address. I look forward to this parliament being all
that it is cracked up to be. It is cracked up to be a house
of the people. We are nothing but representatives of the
people. Because my experience goes back to 1990, I
know that people like me come and go. So one word of
warning to new members: if you decide that rudeness
or arrogance to the other members of parliament on
both sides is part of your play, remember that one day
you will need them.
I never forget that I am responsible to my dairy
farmers, who are affected by this Murray-Darling Ba-
sin issue. My dairy farmers receive a lot of their feed
from that grown in the Murray-Darling Basin. There is
not a person in this country who is not affected by what
happens in the Murray-Darling Basin. We need to con-
sider whether we are going to remain internationally
competitive. I have never walked away from my posi-
tion that to remain internationally competitive, whether
we are growing potatoes or other vegetables or supply-
ing any sort of a market whatsoever, we need a flexible
labour market. I believe that when we went to the Aus-
tralian people saying that we are not different from the
Labor Party on the issue of a flexible labour market we
were not believed. I will always have a different posi-
tion to Labor on IR. I have never walked away from
that; I do not walk away from it today.
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
I have spent a life in small business. What we
earned, we earned for ourselves. What we earned, we
earned with the cooperation of the staff who worked
with us every day. We had a flexible workplace before
there was a flexible workplace. For the unions to say
today that a student cannot come in and work for two
hours but must work for three is ridiculous. Asham-
edly, I do not remember all of my young students, and
they say, ‘Russell, I worked for you.’ But they were
young girls and young men then. Today, they are not
young men and young girls; they are adults, and they
have gone on to do marvellous things. But their first
job was working in one of Broadbent’s stores. We had
to be flexible with our staff. Lots of them were young
mums. They could not come until after nine o’clock
and they had to be home by 3.30. So they made other
arrangements within our businesses so that it all
worked for everybody. Half the time, this parliament
starts from a position that says that all employers are
crooks and all workers are good. Life is not like that. It
is hard.
There are others in my party who know exactly what
I am talking about because they have lived my life. I
am sure that they were there on a Wednesday night
worrying how they were going to get enough money in
the bank by two o’clock on Thursday to pay the wages
of their staff. Forget the family: they were not going to
get any.
In my electorate of the past is the Hazelwood power
station, which supplies 25 per cent of the power that
goes into the Victorian grid. Yet we have people
blithely and openly saying, ‘We’re going to close down
that power station because it suits us politically and
because it is dirty.’ On and on they go. The fact is, at
this time we cannot. Over years, we can change it to
gas. There are things that we can do. We can better
clean up our act. But please do not threaten the jobs of
those workers. Every time somebody makes a state-
ment about closing down Hazelwood, my phones rip-
ple like mad, because people see the Labor government
attacking their jobs. Do you know why I am here in
this place? Because Labor voters voted for Russell
Broadbent. They know that he will come into this place
and protect their jobs. Time and time again that came
to me from those Hazelwood workers and their fami-
lies. We need new power stations. Eventually, someone
has to bite the bullet and build a new power station.
Labor in Victoria say that they are going to go ahead
and look at building a new power station. And then
they get creamed by all their own people.
The most important thing to do in this country is to
secure our water supply. Mr John Forrest, the member
for Mallee, said in a speech yesterday that the first
thing that the Romans did was to secure their water
supply. That is what we have to do in this country.
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Power stations do not run without water. It is one of the
most important issues for us to deal with as a nation.
During the last election campaign, I did not hear
anybody in this House talking about self-funded retir-
ees. They are a growing group in our community. They
need the same sort of attention that we give to other
groups in the community. But they have been com-
pletely ignored, in my humble opinion. They are the
people who have not only worked and saved for them-
selves but now live on what they have earned and
saved and their assets. We as a nation do not recognise
that their numbers are growing and that we need to
protect them and their assets so that they can survive
better on their own. But they tend to fall between the
gaps. They are in every electorate. They will come and
talk to you. When I went down to open the farmers
market at Korumburra and Coal Creek, three different
self-funded retirees came up and had long conversa-
tions about where they stood and what their issues
were and how they were struggling. Not every self-
funded retiree is a wealthy person.
Most of my electorate is rural. This rural students is-
sue has been raging in my electorate and there are still
people disadvantaged under the programs that we now
have in place. We have to find ways to rebuild country
communities. If we do not support country students we
cannot expect doctors and nurses and health profes-
sionals to come back into our country communities,
particularly if we are sending people away for educa-
tion the whole time. We have to be able to fund that
appropriately. I think we have made some moves in the
right direction but I do not think we have been the
whole way.
Last night I talked about the importance of health
care. The West Gippsland Healthcare Group runs what
we call the Warragul hospital. I would not be unlike
any other member of this House who has a hospital
nearby that needs rebuilding or is old—and if you have
ever renovated a house or an old building you would
know there are stages throughout the process when you
wish you had never tried. That is why the Warragul
hospital, in this case, is not on the radar for rebuilding
by my state government, yet our federal government
has left the impression, and we as a parliament have
left the impression, that we are available to fund hospi-
tals. I have got Leongatha, I have got Wonthaggi,
which needs an upgrade, and I have got Warragul,
which I am about to tell you needs $243 million for a
brand new site where they have the land or over the
next 20 years—and I will be 79 or 80—we are going to
rebuild solely what exists there now. At the moment
the government has thrown out a couple of million dol-
lars and said: ‘We’ll give you five new emergency bed
cubicles. Both sides have agreed to that and you will
get them. That’s fine. Isn’t that terrific!’ But the prob-
lem is that next year I am going to have a hospital that
CHAMBER
49
needs rebuilding and the year after that I am going to
have a hospital that needs rebuilding. We are on the
edge of Melbourne. Now we have got a new freeway—
the ‘Russell Broadbent Bypass’, which we are all very
happy with. Thank you, Peter Costello, for that and for
all the things that went before and all that sort of stuff.
Ms Roxon interjecting—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
Mr BROADBENT—Oh, so Zahra got that one for
me! Except I go back before you and Zahra with the
first $26 million. Importantly, this hospital is sitting on
the cusp of an explosion of population, a 40 per cent
increase. The member for La Trobe would know that
Casey is really struggling at the moment. It has back-
ups, as I know. My nephew went there the other night
for a cut across his head—I will not tell you how he
got it—and had to wait four hours at Casey. The family
gave up in the end and went on to Dandy Valley, which
is fine. That is fine for families like ours that can afford
to do it. It is not fine for people who come to Casey for
that initial care. That is really important. So what hap-
pens is that people are gravitating to the Warragul hos-
pital—from Moe, Leongatha, Wonthaggi, in the south,
and Neerim, in the north—for all the services that they
provide. They provided 87,000 services last year. We
expected that there would be a 20 per cent increase in
need at the hospital—and there has been a 40 per cent
one.
The minister has heard all this before from hospital
after hospital after hospital. Because of what the nation
has done we are now ending up with a whole lot of
hospitals that are not ready. I am not coming in here
and saying this is a Russell Broadbent proposal and
therefore it must be a good proposal. I have to mount
an argument as to why that particular hospital should
get the benefit of what we do as a nation and as a state.
I have got to get the state bureaucrats on side, the state
government on side and the federal government on side
to fund that Warragul hospital. That is a hard job. It is a
hard job for any of us but we have to mount the argu-
ments. It is no good saying, ‘I want this and a political
fix of $200 million.’ It does not work because it of-
fends everybody. What I need to do here, and what I
am trying to do, is mount the argument that this is an
area that is going to have to be addressed and that I
would rather a new hospital than a rebuild. That is
what I have been putting to this parliament today.
Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned.
STANDING ORDERS
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Minister for Infra-
structure and Transport) (6.34 pm)—by leave—I move:
That standing orders 1, 29, 34, 55 and 133 be amended as
follows:
1 Maximum speaking times (amendments to existing sub-
jects, as follows)
50 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, 19 October 2010

Adjournment of the House or Main (a) The House shall meet each year in accordance with the
Committee—to end the sitting program of sittings for that year agreed to by the House,
Whole debate in House on Monday, Tues- 1 hr unless otherwise ordered and subject to standing order
day and Wednesday 30.
Whole debate in House on Thursday 30 mins (b) When the House is sitting it shall meet and adjourn at
Whole debate in Main Committee not specified the following times, subject to standing orders 30, 31
Extended debate (if required by Minister 10 mins and 32:
to reply etc)
Each Member—no extension of time can 5 mins 1 2 3 4
day Meeting Adjournment House
be granted commences proposed adjourns
Member who has already spoken to the 5 mins Monday 10.00 am 9.30 pm 10.30 pm
motion may speak again for one period if Tuesday 2.00 pm 9.30 pm 10.30 pm
no other Member rises to speak Wednesday 9.00 am 7:00 pm 8.00 pm
Minister in extension of debate 5 mins Thursday 9.00 am 4.30 pm 5.00 pm
(standing orders 31 (House) and 191 34 Order of business
(Main Committee)) The order of business to be followed by the House is shown
29 Set meeting and adjournment times in figure 2.

Figure 2. House order of business

MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY

Acknowledgement Acknowledgement
of country of country
Prayers Prayers
9.00 am 9.00 am
Acknowledgemen
t
of country
Prayers
10.00 am Petitions (to Government Government
10.10am) Business Business
Committee &
delegation
business and
private Members’
business
Divisions and
quorums deferred
10 am–12 noon
12 noon Government
Business

Acknowledgement
1.45 pm 90 sec statements of country 1.45 pm 90 sec statements 1.45 pm 90 sec statements
Prayers
2.00 pm Question Time 2.00 pm Question Time 2.00 pm Question Time 2.00 pm Question Time

Approx Documents, Approx Documents, MPI, Approx Documents, MPI, Approx Documents, MPI,
3.30 pm Ministerial 3.30 pm Ministerial statements 3.30 pm Ministerial statements 3.30 pm Ministerial statements
statements
4.30 pm Adjournment
Debate
Approx Approx 5.00 pm
5.00 pm 5.00 pm
6.30 pm Government 6.30 pm Government Government
Business Business Business

Divisions and Divisions and quorums 7.00 pm Adjournment

quorums deferred deferred 6.30–8 pm Debate
6.30–8 pm
8.00 pm Committee & 8.00 pm 8.00 pm
delegation
business and
private Members’
business

9.30 pm Adjournment 9.30 pm Adjournment

Debate Debate

10.30 pm 10.30 pm

CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
55 Lack of quorum
(a) When the attention of the Speaker is drawn to the state
of the House and the Speaker observes that a quorum is
not present, the Speaker shall count the Members pre-
sent in accordance with standing order 56.
(b) On Mondays, if any Member draws the attention of the
Speaker to the state of the House between 10 am and 12
noon, the Speaker shall announce that he or she will
count the House at 12 noon, if the Member then so de-
sires.
(c) On Mondays and Tuesdays, if any Member draws the
attention of the Speaker to the state of the House be-
tween the hours of 6.30 pm and 8 pm, the Speaker shall
announce that he or she will count the House at 8 pm, if
the Member then so desires.
(d) If a quorum is in fact present when a Member draws
attention to the state of the House, the Speaker may
name the Member in accordance with standing order
94(b) (sanctions against disorderly conduct).
133 Deferred divisions on Mondays and Tuesdays
(a) On Mondays, any division called for between the hours
of 10 am and 12 noon shall be deferred until 12 noon.
(b) On Mondays and Tuesdays, any division called for be-
tween the hours of 6.30 pm and 8 pm shall be deferred
until 8 pm.
(c) The Speaker shall put all questions on which a division
has been deferred, successively and without amendment
or further debate.
(d) This standing order does not apply to a division called
on a motion moved by a Minister on Mondays and
Tuesdays, during the periods specified in this standing
order.
If I may explain briefly, these amendments, which are
agreed to by the government, the opposition and the
crossbenchers, are simply to allow for a period which
operated in the former parliament, which was a de-
ferred divisions and quorums period to operate be-
tween 6.30 pm and 8 pm on a Monday. This operates
of course today, being Tuesday, if there are any divi-
sions or quorums. In order to do that government busi-
ness will be extended on Monday by half an hour, so it
will commence at 6.30 pm and go through to 8 pm—
rather than through to 7.30 pm—and any divisions can
be called at the eight o’clock period. In order to main-
tain the balance between government business and pri-
vate members’ business, the adjournment debate on
Wednesdays will commence at 7 pm rather than 7.30
pm. These are practical amendments which were first
requested in terms of the Monday slot by the Manager
of Opposition Business. We have consulted members
widely and there is agreement across this chamber for
these changes. I commend them to the House.
Question agreed to.
CHAMBER
51
NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT
(PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS SCHEME)
BILL 2010
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 18 October, on motion by Ms
Roxon:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Ms ROXON (Gellibrand—Minister for Health and
Ageing) (6.37 pm)—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
CIVIL DISPUTE RESOLUTION BILL 2010
FOOD STANDARDS AUSTRALIA NEW
ZEALAND AMENDMENT BILL 2010
TRADEX SCHEME AMENDMENT BILL 2010
Referred to Main Committee
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (6.37 pm)—I move:
That the bills be referred to the Main Committee for fur-
ther consideration.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Assistant Treasurer
and Minister for Financial Services and Superannua-
tion) (6.37 pm)—I move:
That order of the day No. 3, government business, be
postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
OFFSHORE PETROLEUM AND GREENHOUSE
GAS STORAGE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT
(MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES) BILL 2010
Cognate bills:
OFFSHORE PETROLEUM AND GREENHOUSE
GAS STORAGE (SAFETY LEVIES)
AMENDMENT BILL 2010
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 29 September, on motion by
Mr Martin Ferguson:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom) (6.39 pm)—I
welcome the opportunity to speak on the Offshore Pe-
troleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation
Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010 and
on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Stor-
age (Safety Levies) Amendment Bill 2010, which
cover an industry which is of huge significance not
only to the Australian economy, not only for Australian
52 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
jobs but also for Australian energy security. I have a
feeling of deja vu in addressing this matter because it is
not the first time this legislation has been before the
House. Indeed, I have had the chance to speak on this
legislation on several occasions. I am pleased that the
government has taken measures to correct a flaw which
existed in its original legislation.
The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Stor-
age Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures)
Bill 2010 and the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse
Gas Storage (Safety Levies) Amendment Bill 2010
amend the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas
Storage Act 2006 to implement policy and technical
amendments. The act was last amended in 2009. The
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Safety Levies) Amendment Bill 2010 amends the
2003 act to provide transitional arrangements in rela-
tion to the phasing out of the pipeline safety manage-
ment plan levy. The Offshore Petroleum and Green-
house Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Miscella-
neous Measures) Bill 2010 amends the Offshore Petro-
leum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. This is a
relatively small bill, making a number of minor policy
and technical amendments.
In 2008, the coalition supported the Offshore Petro-
leum Amendment (Greenhouse Gas Storage) Bill 2008,
which amended the Offshore Petroleum Act 2006 to
establish a system of offshore titles to authorise trans-
portation, injection and storage of greenhouse gas sub-
stances, principally carbon dioxide, into deep geologi-
cal formations under the seabed. Of course there has
been a great deal of talk and not much action in rela-
tion to geosequestration from those on the other side,
although I did note with interest the announcement of
the minister last week where a significant amount of
money was awarded to various projects in relation to
carbon capture and storage. Interestingly, though, most
of that money went overseas. It is of some interest to
me that the Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, es-
tablished with such great fanfare by the previous Prime
Minister, has really received no international support of
any great matter. In fact, only one country out of the
many said to be involved in that institute has actually
put any money up. At last count, the Americans, who
offered $500,000, did so a few days before they re-
ceived $6½ million dollars for a project in Texas in the
United States.
Serious questions are now being asked about the
economic viability of carbon capture and storage. The
missing link in all of this, apart from the government’s
continued talk and little action, is that the coal industry
is going to have to put real dollars on the table. They
will not be surprised by that message. Perhaps they
will not be happy with it but they should not be sur-
prised by it as it is a comment I have made to them
repeatedly in recent times. If carbon capture and stor-
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
age is to be economically viable, the coal industry is
going to have to invest substantial sums of money in it.
I am not talking about hundreds of millions of dollars;
I am talking about several billions of dollars. Without
that support and without commitment from other coun-
tries, the concept being championed by the Minister for
Resources and Energy in the Gillard government will
simply go nowhere, along with the myriad other poli-
cies they have announced during their time in govern-
ment.
In 2009, the coalition considered and supported the
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Leg-
islation Amendment Bill 2009 and the Offshore Petro-
leum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety Levies)
Amendment Bill 2009. These bills made minor techni-
cal amendments to the act. The main bill also gave the
minister power to appoint a commission to undertake
an inquiry into factors specific or incidental to a sig-
nificant offshore petroleum or greenhouse gas storage
incident. Unfortunately, I have to say that that was an
important step supported by the coalition because of
what was then the first incidence of an offshore leak—
the Montara well off north-western Western Austra-
lia—in some 25 years of exploration and drilling off
the coast of Australia.
Montara was an incident which the government and
the opposition took very seriously at the time, but little
did we know, when that incident occurred, that it was
soon to be followed by a huge incident in the Gulf of
Mexico. In both cases oil and hydrocarbons escaped
uncontrolled from underwater wells. Fortunately in the
case of Montara in Western Australia the environ-
mental damage was nowhere near as significant as it
was in the Gulf of Mexico. Either way, though, escapes
of this type cannot go without significant investigation.
Both the opposition and, I am sure, the government
will take a very close interest in the findings that come
from the inquiries into the Montara and Gulf of Mexico
cases.
This amendment to the bill allowed the initiation of
the Montara Commission of Inquiry into that uncon-
trolled release of oil and gas from the Montara well-
head platform in the Timor Sea. It is important that that
process be pursued to its completion and that this be
done without interference and without politics. The
minister has recently stated that the report of this
commission of inquiry will be released before Christ-
mas this year and the coalition supports the minister’s
delay in releasing that report. It is important that we do
not lose any opportunity to follow through lines of in-
quiry—either ours or the commission’s—and that we
do not prejudice in any way any potential action, par-
ticularly legal action, by prematurely releasing this
report.
But we do urge the minister, now that parliament has
resumed in full, to release this report as soon as possi-
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ble. It is important for everyone involved. It is impor-
tant for the companies who have a financial interest in
this that this matter is resolved. It is important that we
complete our lines of inquiry so that we are able to
fully explain to the best of everyone’s ability why this
incident occurred in Montara, because it is crucial that
such incidents do not recur in Australia’s offshore pe-
troleum industry. The potential environmental impact
is an issue which has been well canvassed in the media,
but the Australian community needs to have confidence
that offshore oil and gas exploration can be done in
complete safety. So I look forward to the release of that
report and, as has been the case to date, we have taken
a bipartisan approach with the government to ensure
that everything that should be done is done.
The safety levies amendment of 2009 commenced
the phase-out of the pipeline safety management plan
levy by putting in place a safety case levy covering
pipelines. This was to facilitate pipelines being covered
under the safety regulations in future, rather than under
pipeline regulations. The safety case levy is imposed to
recover the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Au-
thority’s—NOPSA’s—costs associated with monitoring
safety compliance. NOPSA plays an extraordinarily
important role in making sure that there is compliance
with the safety rules.
It was intended that the state and Northern Territory
regulations would be amended to correspond with the
Commonwealth regulations. I am sure it comes as no
surprise to the House that this has not occurred. As a
result, some safety levy payments due to NOPSA may
not be collectable until corresponding amendments are
in place. The current safety levy bill therefore seeks to
address these issues with transitional measures. I am
particularly pleased to see that the government has
been prepared to address this problem in its previous
legislation.
However, in its previous format the coalition had
significant concerns about the bill. My colleagues in
Western Australia in particular were very concerned
with some aspects of the bill. It seems only reasonable
that, with two-thirds of Australia’s offshore oil and gas
resources and with about 80 per cent of offshore titles
being based in Western Australia, this parliament and
this government should take a reasonable interest in the
concerns of both the state and federal representatives
of that state. We also had significant concerns about the
fact that there had not been adequate consultation, par-
ticularly with the Western Australian government.
There were also concerns that the federal government
would be moving, through this bill, to hold the fees for
the establishment of a national offshore petroleum
regulator, given that at least one state government—as
I say, the Western Australian government—has con-
cerns about this proposal and that those concerns are
yet to be resolved. In fact there will need to be continu-
CHAMBER
53
ing discussions with both the Western Australian Min-
ister for Mines and Petroleum, Norman Moore, and
with the opposition if we are to make progress on that
regulator.
We do support in principle the establishment of a na-
tional offshore petroleum regulator, but it must be a
national, not a federal, regulator—that is, it must have
representatives from those states which will be in-
volved in the regulation of offshore petroleum along
with the Commonwealth government. It needs to be a
partnership and a partnership where we all share re-
sponsibility and also share the same aim of making
sure that the regulator operates in a way which will
produce the optimum outcome. We need to ensure that
all states agree with the establishment and operation of
the national offshore petroleum regulator.
That is achievable but, along with its inability to de-
liver, where this government continually fails is in the
area of consultation. We have seen a classic example of
that recently with the discussion paper—I think it was
perhaps a ‘guide to a discussion paper’; it seems to be
of less importance everyday—on water management.
The Gillard government has the same bad trait that the
Rudd government had and that is that it fails to consult.
We need to have consultation in the case of the national
offshore petroleum regulator. It is an issue that needs to
be finalised, but it will not be finalised unless this gov-
ernment consults with all concerned, particularly, as I
say, with the Western Australian government.
The Western Australian government has been quite
open in expressing its concerns also about the Produc-
tivity Commission’s recommendations and the imple-
mentation of those recommendations. Since Western
Australia’s budget is going to be hit by this measure,
identified in this bill as savings to the Commonwealth,
it makes sense that its concerns are fully addressed
before the passage of this piece of legislation. The coa-
lition, as has always been the case in opposition, is
prepared to sit down with the minister and discuss the
issues constructively. As the minister knows, my door
is always open and we will work to ensure a positive
outcome.
Unfortunately, there is much work to be done if the
government is to meet its responsibilities in the oil and
gas sector. It is particularly frustrating that the govern-
ment has again delayed the release of its energy white
paper which obviously impacts on the oil and gas in-
dustry and a whole range of energy resources, not the
least of which is electricity. While this legislation today
is important to the oil and gas industry, it does, how-
ever, highlight the piecemeal approach to energy policy
in Australia. The most recent delaying tactic occurred
earlier this month when the government fobbed off
again the release of the energy white paper with an-
other excuse, this time attempting to pass off an energy
efficiency report as a temporary stand-in for the energy
54 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
white paper. The report is not an energy white paper
and does not fill the void created by three years of in-
action in this area by the Rudd, now Gillard, govern-
ment.
Households and businesses across Australia are fo-
cused on the rapidly escalating price of electricity, and
the federal government has comprehensively failed to
provide leadership for the energy sector right across the
board—electricity, oil, gas and coal—by dodging its
responsibilities to provide the energy policy framework
that would be contained in an energy white paper.
There have been myriad excuses. Firstly, there were
the problems with the ETS, and now the Gillard gov-
ernment is trying to inflict more delays on the sector
while its climate change panel deliberates for another
year about a potential carbon tax.
The last energy white paper was delivered by the
Howard government—in fact delivered by me as the
Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources—in
2004. In keeping with the regular five-year cycle, an
updated version is well and truly overdue. There have
been enough excuses, enough delays and enough drip-
feeds. It is time for the Gillard government to release a
comprehensive energy white paper that will address the
full range of issues affecting the energy sector.
While I do welcome the changes to the legislation
before the House today, and the opposition will support
the bills, the government must accept and address that
its day of reckoning on energy matters is fast approach-
ing. Every day it leaves the energy and resources sector
without a clear framework is another day that invest-
ment decisions must be made in a policy vacuum and
another day in which no solution is offered to limit the
rapidly increasing electricity price rises being felt
across Australia.
The energy area is one of the most significant areas
not only because of the price that the community pays
for electricity but also because it is the basis of our
economic development. There are a number of mem-
bers of this House who are watching development in
the onshore petroleum industry, particularly the coal
seam industry, with great expectation. There are a
number of members who have manufacturing indus-
tries in their electorates, all of whom are sitting and
waiting for some definitive policies in relation to en-
ergy from this government.
While we as an opposition provide our constructive
support where we can, and we do on these bills, we
need to see some action from the Gillard government if
this country is to have the confidence to make the in-
vestments that will see not only the exploration of oil
and gas continue but also the development of onshore
industries and, most importantly, the continued devel-
opment of baseload clean electricity generation in Aus-
tralia.
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Ms LIVERMORE (Capricornia) (6.57 pm)—I join
the debate here this evening on the Offshore Petroleum
and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment
(Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010 and the Offshore
Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety Lev-
ies) Amendment Bill 2010. The purpose of these two
bills is to make minor policy and technical amend-
ments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas
Storage Act 2006 and the Offshore Petroleum and
Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety Levies) Act 2003.
Listeners to this debate will not be surprised to hear
the parliament discussing these measures to improve
the safety of offshore oil and gas wells, their structural
soundness and ways to make the regulation of the in-
dustry more efficient and effective. We have already
seen a huge expansion in exploration and drilling activ-
ity off our coast as companies seek to unlock the enor-
mous reserves of natural gas and, to a lesser extent, oil
from the seabed. This will only continue and acceler-
ate, as the demand for Australia’s abundant energy re-
sources shows no sign of abating. Alongside these im-
portant industries is the emergence of technology to
capture and store carbon dioxide in geological forma-
tions under the seabed as a means of reducing Austra-
lia’s carbon emissions. This has been recognised by the
amendment in the previous parliament of the offshore
petroleum legislation to include regulation of carbon
storage. I certainly join the shadow minister, the mem-
ber for Groom, in calling on all sections of the re-
sources industry in this country to get on board in the
development of the carbon capture and storage indus-
try.
The projected phenomenal growth of these indus-
tries is one reason for the government to be focused on
the regulatory regime that underpins the sector. The
other reason is obvious to anyone who has switched on
a television or read a newspaper in the last six months
and seen the images of devastation coming from the
Gulf Coast of the United States. Oil spilled into the
waters off Alabama, Louisiana and Florida for 87 days
at an estimated rate of 60,000 barrels a day. The un-
precedented environmental damage caused by the ex-
plosion on BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig has
reinforced the need for all governments to be vigilant
in the regulation of their offshore oil and gas industries.
Even before the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe in
America, this government had already taken steps to
apply the lessons coming out of the commission of
inquiry which followed an underwater leak from the
Montara drilling platform in the Timor Sea. The
growth of the oil, gas and carbon storage activities in
some of Australia’s most untouched and sensitive
ocean environments places an enormous responsibility
on all governments, but it is becoming increasingly
apparent that it is the responsible Commonwealth min-
ister who carries the political responsibility for the off-
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
shore industries and it is correct that this parliament,
the federal parliament, consider these improvements to
our regulatory regime.
These bills make a number of changes including:
funding the establishment of a National Offshore Pe-
troleum Regulator, NOPR; strengthening the functions
of the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority,
NOPSA; clarifying the operation of the titleholder pro-
visions in situations of multiple titleholders; increasing
the effectiveness of compliance through the application
of strict liability to appropriate offences; and restoring
the original policy intent by clarifying that a title-
holder’s duty of care under the occupational health and
safety provisions relates only to wells.
It has been the government’s intention for some time
now to establish a new National Offshore Petroleum
Regulator to commence on 1 January 2012. This initia-
tive was recommended by the Productivity Commis-
sion following its inquiry into the regulatory burdens
on the oil and gas sector. The national regulator was
seen as a means to remove unnecessary duplication and
to provide greater consistency in regulation across the
country. It is important to note at the outset that this
bill does not establish the National Offshore Petroleum
Regulator but it does put in place another important
step in its development by providing for an equitable
means of funding its establishment. The bill does this
by enabling the Commonwealth government to retain
registration fees currently collected under the Offshore
Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Registration
Fees) Act 2006.
Until now those registration fees have been redis-
tributed to the states and territories as joint administra-
tors of the regulatory system. This measure was looked
at in detail by the Senate’s economics committee,
which heard that the retention of fees over just a couple
of years will amount to over $20 million for the Com-
monwealth government to put towards the national
regulator. The minister stressed, however, in his second
reading speech that he does not anticipate amendments
relating to the establishment of the National Offshore
Petroleum Regulator to be brought to the House until
next year to allow adequate time for the matter to be
fully discussed with the states and territories. In the
meantime it is prudent to give the industry certainty
about the funding mechanism for those set-up costs.
Another part of these bills is the strengthened role of
NOPSA. Previously, the states and territories were re-
sponsible for the regulation of safety in the offshore oil
and gas industry. Following a review in 1999, NOPSA
was established and since 2005 it has been the body
responsible for regulating occupational health and
safety matters that arise from petroleum, gas and
greenhouse gas operations in Commonwealth waters.
Those responsibilities extended to the structural integ-
rity of facilities and also to wells that are part of those
CHAMBER
55
facilities only to the extent to which the structural in-
tegrity affects the safety of the offshore workforce at
the facilities. Under these amendments, NOPSA’s role
is now clarified and strengthened by extending its
regulatory function to explicitly include non-
occupational health and safety aspects of the structural
integrity of offshore facilities.
According to the explanatory memorandum, the
proposed amendments have the intent of strengthening
the ability of NOPSA to carry out its existing regula-
tory responsibilities and augment its responsibilities by
expressly including oversight of the whole structural
integrity facilities including pipelines, wells and well-
related equipment. For achieving completeness of this
oversight role the amendments include non-OHS struc-
tural integrity aspects to ensure complete coverage of
this particular function. NOPSA needs to be able to
effectively and fully regulate the structural integrity of
petroleum and greenhouse gas facilities and wells,
even where certain structures such as pipelines and
wells may not have people at or near them for extended
periods of time. Although these amendments do not
extend NOPSA’s role beyond that of an occupational
health and safety regulator, it nevertheless represents a
step towards a more powerful and centralised regulator.
This is a common sense recognition that the structural
integrity of any part of a facility, including the well or
pipeline, is an OHS matter as it is essential to the
health and safety of any work crew that might have to
work on those remote parts of the facility at some point
in time.
The next set of amendments in part 4 of the bill will
amend various offence provisions in the act to make
the offences ones of strict liability. This again strength-
ens the regulatory regime and makes the job of the
regulators in enforcing the laws more realistic. As they
currently stand, the offence provisions in question re-
quire intent to be proved in order for a prosecution to
be successful. As the explanatory memorandum points
out, given the remote and complex nature of offshore
operations and the prevalence of multiple titleholder
arrangements, it is extremely difficult to prove intent
on the part of any party. To date, this has left these par-
ticular offence provisions largely unenforceable. The
intention of the application of strict liability is to im-
prove compliance in the regulatory regime. NOPSA
will no longer be required to prove what a titleholder
did or did not intend to do with respect to a safety
function but merely that a certain action took place or
failed to be undertaken. The liability then follows from
the proof of that fact, regardless of fault or intent on
the part of the titleholder. After the Deepwater disaster
in the US, we all appreciate the importance of regula-
tors having the power to rigorously follow through on
the regulations that protect the safety of workers and
the state of our environment.
56 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
This bill will also clarify the situation when a title is
held in conjunction by two or more titleholders, as is
common in many offshore ventures. This amendment
clearly provides that when two or more titleholders are
jointly responsible for the administration of a facility
then one can be nominated to act in the interest of all
parties. Effectively this means that where the act im-
poses an obligation, the obligation is imposed on each
and every titleholder in the consortium but can be dis-
charged by any one of the titleholders. With this
amendment, there will be one titleholder, one contact,
to represent the interests of the joint titleholders. The
act will now ensure that a single titleholder can be re-
sponsible for its applications, requests, nominations or
notices. This amendment will reduce the complexity
that existed in the previous act—complexity which has
previously frustrated the government, industry title-
holders and the NOPSA—and instead produce a more
manageable and more efficiently functioning industry.
This amendment does not seek to diminish the legal
responsibilities of the titleholders. These will remain
unchanged. The amendment does, however, seek to
create a designated contact for each facility in order to
streamline procedures.
The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Stor-
age Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures)
Bill 2010 also includes a section that corrects the defi-
nition of a titleholder’s occupational health and safety
responsibilities. The current act contains a titleholder
duty of care in relation to facilities. That reference to
facilities is in fact broader than was intended and could
have the consequence of making the titleholder respon-
sible for facilities such as drill rigs over which the ti-
tleholder has no direct responsibility or control. Hence,
this amendment makes it clear that the titleholder’s
occupational health and safety responsibilities are nar-
rower than that and relate to wells rather than facilities
in general. The duty of care does, however, extend to
all aspects of well design, construction, maintenance
and operation.
The second bill that we are debating this evening is
the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Safety Levies) Amendment Bill 2010. This bill pro-
vides transitional arrangements to ensure that appropri-
ate levies may be collected for pipelines in designated
coastal waters. An amendment in 2009 removed refer-
ences to pipeline safety management plans and safety
plan levies. Instead it introduced a safety case levy that
includes pipelines. This amendment will provide tran-
sitional arrangements to allow the states and territories
further time to amend regulations under their petro-
leum legislation to reflect these changes made by the
Commonwealth.
The offshore oil and gas industry is undergoing
enormous growth and will continue to underwrite Aus-
tralia’s prosperity for many years to come. Through
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
this legislation the government is continuing to refine
the regulatory framework by which the industry is su-
pervised and administered. The regulation of the indus-
try needs to be strong because of the high stakes in-
volved in terms of potential harm to workers and to the
environment. A clear message has to be sent to compa-
nies operating in this sector that there can be no cutting
of corners on occupational health and safety or envi-
ronmental protection. At the same time the regulatory
scheme needs to be made as efficient as possible and
constantly updated and streamlined to keep up with
developments in this burgeoning industry. This legisla-
tion gets that balance right and deserves the support of
all sides of the parliament.
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (7.09 pm)—I rise to ad-
dress the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas
Storage Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Meas-
ures) Bill 2010 together with the Offshore Petroleum
and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety Levies) Amend-
ment Bill 2010. These bills will make changes to the
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
(Safety Levies) Act 2003 to establish transitional ar-
rangements. These will run from 1 January 2010 to 31
December 2012 and will allow for the Commonwealth
to collect safety case levies in designated coastal wa-
ters. These bills will also allow a safety case to be en-
acted for a facility that has a pipeline in designated
coastal waters and will allow the states and Northern
Territory to enact provisions in their respective legisla-
tions to reflect these national changes.
These bills are especially pertinent to my constitu-
ents in the electorate of Paterson. Currently Advent
Energy is preparing to start exploratory drilling for
natural gas off the coast of New South Wales. That in-
cludes drilling just 10 kilometres off the coastline and
into my electorate at Port Stephens from next month.
According to the geophysical site survey, Advent En-
ergy will test four locations, each with an area of about
nine square kilometres. Location 1 is at 32 degrees 55
minutes latitude, 152 degrees 22 minutes longitude.
Location 2 is at 33 degrees eight minutes latitude, 152
degrees five minutes longitude. Location 3 is at 33 de-
grees nine minutes latitude, 151 degrees 54 minutes
longitude. Location 4 is at 33 degrees 25 minutes lati-
tude, 151 degrees 42 minutes longitude. If successful,
the exploration could lead to a sizeable offshore gas
extraction project within the next decade. Reserves are
currently valued at approximately $50 billion. Advent
Energy has secured its exploration permit under the
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act
2006, one of the very acts that this bill seeks to amend.
In particular, as I have mentioned, one of the func-
tions of this amendment will be to help ensure that the
safety authority can collect levies to fund its safety
operations. The authority plays an important role in
enforcing Australia’s safety laws and ensuring that pri-
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
vate companies comply with all the relevant legisla-
tion. I was able to witness this role firsthand during my
personal experience with the National Offshore Petro-
leum Safety Authority a year from its inception on 1
January 2005 because I was the Parliamentary Secre-
tary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Re-
sources from 2006 to 2007, with responsibility for
NOPSA. Utilising the higher safety standards needs to
be absolutely paramount during future gas drilling and
pipeline projects.
After all, much of Australia’s way of life is built
around the beauty and health of our beaches, oceans
and marine life. Industries such as tourism also rely
heavily on the quality of our coastline. It is therefore
central to the greater national economy. Indeed, one of
the things I love most about living in the electorate of
Paterson is being able to go to the beach, have a swim,
do some fishing. I truly believe that we have some of
the best coastal spots in the whole world and that is
why it is vital we protect our coast. Importantly, this is
a matter for all levels of government, as the act is ad-
ministered by both federal and New South Wales gov-
ernment authorities. Local councils also play a large
role in coastal management and will therefore be im-
pacted by legislation relating to our seas.
Unfortunately, gas pipelines do pose some environ-
mental threats. Those threats involved in Advent En-
ergy’s proposal off Newcastle have been detailed in a
confidential report to the New South Wales govern-
ment. However, despite the fact that this is the first
project of its kind off New South Wales, the state La-
bor government has refused to make the details public.
I am a firm believer in consultation and making deci-
sions with all of the information available. Proper re-
search and science, combined with advice from local
people who know their local area, are the only way to
truly make a decision in the best public interest. It is
for this reason that I would urge the New South Wales
government to immediately release the confidential
report to my constituents.
In the meantime I look to the information which has
become publicly available. An article in the Newcastle
Herald by Damon Cronshaw published on 11 October
reads:
A confidential report on an exploratory gas drilling project
off the coast of Newcastle has revealed the proposal’s poten-
tial environmental risks, including the possibility of oil
spills.
The NSW Government refused to release the report, saying it
did not have to be made public under Commonwealth law.
But the Newcastle Herald has obtained a copy, which details
the plan’s potential risks to the environment and the possibil-
ity of an oil spill.
The article goes on to list a number of environmental
risks and potential effects of Advent Energy’s projects.
Those include an oil spill that will last for up to 11
CHAMBER
57
weeks; a whale collision which would threaten work-
ers’ lives; physiological damage to the sensitive marine
fauna from underwater noise; chemical, oil and diesel
spills which would have a toxic effect on marine or-
ganisms; and discharges 15 to 20 degrees above ambi-
ent sea temperature, which would dramatically impact
on marine life .Obviously, these issues are deeply con-
cerning to my constituents in Paterson. As a former
dive operator and keen offshore fisherman myself, I am
also committed to the importance of marine protection
and biodiversity.
The Executive Director of Advent Energy, David
Breeze, was quoted in the Newcastle Herald in the
aforementioned article as saying that the company was
‘very confident the risks are being adequately ad-
dressed’. This may very well be the case; however,
without seeing the report my community is unable to
make an informed decision. I myself have not been
invited to any consultation sessions despite being in the
immediately affected area. However, I am in the proc-
ess of seeking an invitation to any further community
consultation forums.
I found it important today to note my concerns with
offshore gas drilling projects and the lack of transpar-
ency currently being executed by the New South Wales
and Australian Labor governments. However, it is im-
portant for me to also note that I am not opposed out-
right to gas drilling. This is because, if executed cor-
rectly, natural gas projects present a number of oppor-
tunities both in New South Wales and across the nation
as a whole.
The use of gas as an energy source certainly has po-
tential to benefit our environment and I support the
moves to broaden Australia’s energy sources. Certainly,
the Australian community has become much more
aware of its contribution to greenhouse gases and is
keen to limit the impact on the environment. You have
only to take a look at the take-up of solar power, recy-
cling programs and gas hot water systems to see that
people are keen to do what they can to be more envi-
ronmentally friendly.
Of course, the coalition and the Gillard Labor gov-
ernment are deeply divided about the best way to limit
Australia’s carbon emissions. The coalition has advo-
cated an incentives based approach which educates
people and rewards them for reducing carbon emis-
sions. The Gillard Labor government, on the other
hand, seems to think that the big new tax will somehow
get the Australian public to look after their environ-
ment. So, while our methods deeply vary, we are
united in the opinion that we have been blessed with an
amazing part of the world and we should be taking care
of it in the best way we can.
It is therefore important when assessing the future of
natural gas to consider its advantages. For example,
natural gas produces approximately 65 per cent fewer
58 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
emissions than brown or black coal. On top of that, it
also has fewer contaminants than coal or oil. Thus,
natural gas has the potential to play an important role
in the future energy needs of New South Wales, which
currently relies most heavily on coal-fired power sta-
tions. The Keneally state Labor government has itself
called on private companies to invest more in gas pro-
jects and has approved plans for two new gas-fired
power stations.
Clearly, Australia’s governments are moving to-
wards the use of natural gas, but that is not the issue.
The issue here today is the safety of the gas projects
and ensuring the safety authority has the tools it needs
to protect our seas—the ocean floor, shore line and
marine life. I am convinced that the only way to
achieve it is to make sure that the process is open and
transparent.
As the member for Paterson, it is my job to repre-
sent the views of my constituents. However, unless my
constituents have all of the tools to form their own
opinions and conclusions, I simply cannot do so. That
is why I am here today echoing their calls for more
information on offshore drilling and the safety proc-
esses in general. One letter I received from a constitu-
ent detailed a meeting held by the community in Boat
Harbour on this issue. It was attended by more than
100 people. The main concern at the meeting was the
lack of consultation by state and federal Labor gov-
ernments regarding the offshore drilling legislation.
In the last couple of months I have also spoken with
a number of people regarding the future of offshore
drilling and safety measures involved. As a part of
these talks, many of my constituents have mentioned
the Gulf of Mexico BP oil spill, which occurred earlier
this year. It has now become known as the biggest off-
shore oil spill in US history. Of course, this event was
extraordinary. It devastated marine and bird life and
resulted in large quantities of water being completely
overtaken by oil. It has cost billions of dollars and the
long-term effects will not be known for some time to
come. Its impacts have been widely reported in news
items across the globe.
Still being so fresh in people’s minds, and with off-
shore drilling such a new concept for many residents in
New South Wales, there is a definite feeling within my
electorate of Paterson that we too could be faced with a
similar reality if safety is not paramount in future drill-
ing projects. Similar fears were detailed in a report by
the Newcastle Herald on 13 October, listing four sce-
narios that could cause an oil spill as part of Advent
Energy’s exploratory drilling using the Ocean Patriot
drilling rig. These four scenarios are a refuelling inci-
dent, collision, subsea blow-out, and subsea rupture.
The Port Stephens Examiner also detailed local con-
cerns in an article by Nikki Taylor published on 13
October. I quote:
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Port Stephens Council is to have an input on the NSW
government-sanctioned committee to oversee exploratory
drilling off the coast.
With drilling expected to get underway off the coast of
Boat Harbour next month, there has been a growing concern
from environmental groups and affected councils. The drill-
ing project, conducted by Asset Energy, could lead to a sig-
nificant offshore gas extraction project valued at $50 billion.
Concerns have been raised that drilling could have a
negative impact on migratory and threatened species includ-
ing marine turtles, whales, sharks, fish and birds.
As well, one of the reports raises fears about a potential
threat from oil spills.
Earlier this year both Wyong and Gosford councils raised
concerns with Gosford strongly objecting to the plans be-
cause there have been no social, economic or environmental
assessments carried out. Port Stephens general manager Peter
Gesling said the council had only in the past few weeks been
asked to become a part of the consultative committee.
“The council has no authority over this project, we can
however offer our view to the state government who will
consider them along with other community and industry
concerns,” he said.
Nelson Bay-based environmental group Econetwork has
confirmed its opposition to the venture.
“We expressed to the minister in August 2008 that we
were appalled by the audacity of the application,” group sec-
retary Darrell Dawson said.
Without more information on the likelihood of these
events and the contingency plans created by Advent
Energy, we simply do not have the tools to allay such
fears to the level demanded and deserved by our com-
munity. We also open ourselves up to a scare campaign
which could undermine the very safety activities cur-
rently being promoted by the Offshore Petroleum and
Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety Levies) Amendment
Bill.
I support moves to increase the success and activi-
ties of NOPSA, which is sure to play an increasing role
in the natural gas industry. Continued funding for the
safety authority therefore needs to be protected through
appropriate levies. However, just as the federal gov-
ernment has placed its focus on compliance activities,
Prime Minister Gillard must also ensure that public
education does not lag behind. Offshore gas projects
look certain to increase in number and the community
deserves to know what that means for our coast and
what it means for the future of power supply in the
country. As I said, I am not opposed to this project; I
am actually opposed to the lack of information being
provided to the community. It is incumbent upon Ad-
vent Energy and the state and federal governments,
which substantially will be rewarded from this project,
to embark on a process of public consultation and edu-
cation. Failure to do so will only build deeper and
stronger community resentment of this project, a pro-
ject which is likely to create hundreds of jobs in my
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
community and bring an enormous amount of invest-
ment into Australia.
Mr CHEESEMAN (Corangamite) (7.23 pm)—
Today I rise to speak on the Offshore Petroleum and
Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment
(Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010 and the Offshore
Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety Lev-
ies) Amendment Bill 2010. Before I do so may I con-
gratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, on the
very strong endorsement of you by your community at
the 2010 federal election.
This amending legislation, I believe, is very impor-
tant not only for my part of the world, Corangamite,
but also for many other parts of regional Australia.
These bills will make minor policy and technical
amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Green-
house Gas Storage (Safety Levies) Act 2003. It will
improve the ability of the National Offshore Petroleum
Safety Authority, the regulator in this area. The Mon-
tara Commission of Inquiry and the recent events in the
Gulf of Mexico have moved the Australian government
to improve the regulation of petroleum operations and I
think that is very wise indeed.
There will of course be no adverse effect on industry
and there will be no extra costs to industry, and that is
also very important. This legislation will also simplify
the safety regime for titleholders and will make title-
holders accountable when necessary, as spelt out by
these bills. This legislation will remove direct respon-
sibility from a titleholder for facilities which it has no
direct control over. This legislation will not adversely
affect any regional people. That is great for my elector-
ate of Corangamite, which is in regional Victoria. This
industry is a very important component of my regional
economy and of many other regional economies across
this region.
These bills will go a long way to making this indus-
try safer, and that is excellent news for regions like
mine that of course do provide substantial income to
the national economy. This industry is very important
in many parts of the country. Within my electorate I
have, just offshore, the Otway Basin, which is a very
important gas production area in south-eastern Austra-
lia, and it provides a very substantial volume of gas to
Australian markets.
Indeed, as at December 2009, the Otway Basin’s pe-
troleum fields provided a very substantial volume of
gas to the market. Some 23.4 per cent of eastern Aus-
tralia’s conventional gas production came from my part
of the world. This equated to some 1,197 petajoules,
which equates to some 17.8 per cent of Victoria’s con-
ventional gas reserves, a very substantial volume and a
very substantial economic asset for our part of the
world. The basin also produced some 3.5 per cent of
eastern Australia’s total gas reserves and some 3.1 per
cent, 70,000 tonnes, of Australia’s liquefied petroleum
CHAMBER
59
gas, LPG—again, very substantial components. The
basin also produces a small amount of condensate,
some 708,000 barrels, or 1.2 per cent, of Australia’s
production. This is a significant contribution from my
region and it is a very important industry—an industry
that will grow and develop over time.
The Otway Basin has three major gas projects which
all transfer offshore gas to onshore treatment for proc-
essing and distribution. The largest development in the
Otway Basin is the Otway Gas Project. It is a $1.1 bil-
lion development some 70 kilometres south of Port
Campbell. We need to encourage these industries be-
cause these industries will not only help to signifi-
cantly grow my local economy but also grow many
regions such as the Geelong region as we move for-
ward.
I also have some very significant natural resources
within my seat. I have the Great Ocean Road, the Surf
Coast and the Bellarine Peninsula. If we do not get
regulation in these areas correct and we have oil spills
such as Montana or the disaster that took place in the
Gulf of Mexico then that would place very significant
pressure on my seat and on many other areas in Austra-
lia that often have very significant tourism related ac-
tivities. That is why we need to have strong regulation
in these areas. I congratulate the Minister for Re-
sources and Energy on ensuring that we do have strong
regulation that takes account of the very significant
risks that do occur within this industry. Tourism is also
a very significant job producer within my area. That is
why we need to ensure that the offshore petroleum in-
dustry can deliver its product to market safely and that
the right mechanisms are put in place to protect our
very significant regional economies.
As I mentioned earlier, offshore petroleum is be-
coming a very major part of the economy and a major
employer within my electorate—and I know it also is
within many other parts of regional Australia. We need
to make sure the wells and the overall industry are safe
and have the right amount of regulatory oversight and
protection. This will have a direct benefit for the work-
ers in the industry and I think it is also a step in the
right direction in growing our regional economies. For
these reasons, the minister has taken the responsibili-
ties of the offshore oil and gas industry very seriously.
We have a very safe industry and very productive in-
dustry. But we also know that there are some very sig-
nificant risks and we need to ensure that we deal with
them. These amendments will give NOPSA the ability
to regulate and keep the industry safe.
The intentions of this government are very clear
through these bills. These bills will strengthen the role
of the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority.
This is certainly something I welcome, and I am sure
most people in this place also welcome it. They will
make it clear how the titleholder provisions apply, par-
60 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ticularly when there are two or more titleholders. It
will also make the titleholder more accountable by
making clearer the titleholder’s responsibility under the
occupational health and safety provisions of the act.
These bills will also arrange safety levies to ensure that
the appropriate levies can be collected for pipelines in
designated costal waters.
As I mentioned earlier, in my part of the world gas
is collected offshore, piped onshore and then proc-
essed, so it is important that we have regulation in this
area to ensure that that can happen in a safe way. After
the Montana oil spill, which was a huge tragedy here in
Australia, we needed to make some adjustments to
NOPSA’s functions so that it could be more effective
and fully regulate the structural integrity of petroleum
and greenhouse gas facilities. These amendments do
not extend NOPSA’s role beyond that of an OHS regu-
lator but do take it in a step in that direction. The regu-
lator can not witness all wells of any note. The gov-
ernment has toughened some of the offence provisions
to ensure that industry take full account of their re-
sponsibilities. This will encourage titleholders to in-
form NOPSA if there are any problems with wells or
any other issues.
It is at this point that I would like to place on record
the reality that, as we move further offshore and into
deeper waters, risks become more substantial. The en-
gineering challenges also become much more substan-
tial and need to be properly regulated and managed. I
think these arrangements go in some part to dealing
with that as an issue. This all means that a higher safety
burden will be placed on the titleholder. I think that is
appropriate, particularly with respect to some of the
offences already spelt out by the bill.
The Gillard government is very keen to ensure that
we have appropriate regulation in place to protect the
health and safety of workers, that we have good regula-
tion in place that will protect the environment and that
we have good regulation and legislation in place that
enables us to take full advantage of our natural re-
sources. As I said earlier, we have very substantial as-
sets in my electorate of Corangamite—and I know
many other regional members equally have very sub-
stantial assets with respect to oil and gas. For us to take
full advantage of that, government needs to take certain
measures to ensure that we enable industry to extract it
in a way that is safe for workers and the environment.
I would like to congratulate Minister Ferguson for
working diligently on these matters over the last few
years. I believe the actions that he has taken will enable
this industry to grow in a sustainable way that will pro-
tect the interests of workers and enable our economy to
grow as we take full advantage of our natural re-
sources. I commend the bills to the House.
Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (7.36 pm)—Mr Deputy
Speaker Sidebottom, my cousin, it is a pleasure to
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
speak on these bills—the Offshore Petroleum and
Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment
(Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010 and the Offshore
Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety Lev-
ies) Amendment Bill 2010. You served on the commit-
tee, of which I was chair, where we brought down the
report Down Under: greenhouse gas storage review of
the draft Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Greenhouse
Gas Storage) Bill. I note the courage of the minister—
Minister Ferguson, who is at the table—who put that
groundbreaking legislation before the House Standing
Committee on Primary Industries and Resources and
allowed that committee of all parties to review it, and I
note the hard work that we did to pull together the
thoughts of industry, environmental groups and the
many different parts of industry that would be dealing
with this legislation.
Of course, it was very important that our nation deal
with the storage of greenhouse gas. Greenhouse stor-
age has been going on in the world for 40 or 50 years,
through the petroleum industry. It is a matter of putting
a legislative framework around it in our country, taking
into account the importance of our coal industry and
our petroleum industry. I am very pleased that we are
continuing to refine and pull together the work that was
initially done by the minister through his bill and the
committee which I had the privilege of chairing. We
are always looking at offshore safety and the difficul-
ties that can arise from bad experiences.
This bill was introduced in the last parliament and,
because of the election, it is now being brought back
into this place. I believe a bipartisan approach is being
adopted, which is very important, because the regula-
tion and safety of this industry are matters that we
should agree on and should get right. It is so important
for our nation. Australia needs to be at the forefront of
ensuring there are strict regulations in light of what has
happened in other parts of the world and, indeed, in our
own waters recently.
The purpose of these bills is to make minor policy
and technical amendments to the Offshore Petroleum
and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 and the Off-
shore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety
Levies) Act 2003. On the back of the Montara Com-
mission of Inquiry and the recent events in the Gulf of
Mexico, the Australian government, to its great credit,
is trying to improve the regulatory regime covering
petroleum operations in line with the terms of the in-
quiry. Point No. 2 of the report of the inquiry stated
that the government would review the adequacy and
effectiveness of the regulatory regime applicable to
operations at or in connection with the Montara oil-
field, including under the Offshore Petroleum and
Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, and including the
adequacy and effectiveness of all safety, environment,
operations and resource management plans, and other
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
arrangements approved by a regulator and in force at
relevant times.
It has been apparent for some time that it is the re-
sponsible Commonwealth minister that increasingly
carries the political responsibility for the offshore oil
and gas industry. That is why we need these improve-
ments to the role of the National Offshore Petroleum
Safety Authority—to ensure that it can properly regu-
late the safety of offshore petroleum wells and related
activities.
The miscellaneous measures bill will enact the gov-
ernment’s intention to strengthen the role of the Na-
tional Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority; make
clarifications on how titleholder provisions apply
where titles are held jointly by two or more titlehold-
ers; make clear that a titleholder’s responsibility under
the occupational health and safety provisions of the act
is for wells, and not more broadly for facilities; and to
make some technical amendments to achieve a more
enforceable regulatory regime and to update the act.
The safety levies amendment bill provides transi-
tional arrangements to ensure that appropriate levies
may be collected for pipelines in designated coastal
waters. The government amended the act in 2009, re-
moving provisions that reference pipeline safety man-
agement plans and pipeline management safety plan
levies and replacing them with a safety case levy that
includes pipelines. The current amendments provide
transitional arrangements to allow states and territories
to amend regulations under their petroleum legislation
relating to designated coastal waters so that it reflects
the recent changes made by the Commonwealth to its
act and regulations. The states and territories have
some jurisdiction in this area.
The Montara oil spill made it clear that we needed to
augment NOPSA’s functions to ensure that it can effec-
tively and fully regulate the structural integrity of pe-
troleum and greenhouse gas facilities, wells and well
related equipment, even where certain structures such
as pipelines and wells may not have people at or near
them for extended periods of time.
Although these amendments do not extend NOPSA’s
role beyond that of an occupational health and safety
regulator, this nevertheless represents a step towards a
more powerful and centralised regulator. In recognition
of the fact that a regulator cannot be everywhere at
once, and that it relies on the titleholder informing
them of compliance with its requirements and direc-
tions, these amendments toughen some of the offence
provisions by making them strictly liable where the
offences involve an act or omission alone. This means
that NOPSA no longer has to prove what a titleholder
did or did not intend to do with respect to a safety
function, but merely that a certain action took place.
A higher safety burden is therefore placed on title-
holders in respect of some offences under the bill. At
CHAMBER
61
the same time, part 5 of the miscellaneous measures
bill properly assigns to wells the duties of titleholders
under the OHS provisions of the act. As it exists, the
act could imply that a titleholder has duties in relation
to facilities over which the titleholder has no direct
responsibility or reasonable control. Under the pro-
posed amendments to the act, the titleholder’s liability
is properly assigned to areas that it has control over,
such as all aspects of well design, construction, main-
tenance and operation, rather than facilities in general.
This bill makes a very good contribution to upgrad-
ing and putting our legislation in order. When we look
at our own problems with the Montara well and also
the difficulties in the Gulf of Mexico in recent times—
the problems in the wetlands, the social issues for all
those people around that area and the economic down-
turn in the fishing and tourist industries for the United
States—we see the need to have very good regimes in
place. I commend the minister for getting on with the
job, and I support the bill.
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (Batman—Minister for
Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism) (7.46
pm)—I express my appreciation to the House for the
constructive manner in which the Offshore Petroleum
and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment
(Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010 and the Offshore
Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety Lev-
ies) Amendment Bill 2009 have been debated. In doing
so I extend my particular appreciation for their partici-
pation in the debate to the members for Groom, Pater-
son, Capricornia, Corangamite and Lyons. These bills
amend the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas
Storage Act 2006 and the Offshore Petroleum and
Greenhouse Gas (Safety Levies) Act 2003. I will clar-
ify some issues about the levies at the outset because
they were mistakenly misrepresented by one of the
contributors to the debate. The only measures going to
levies are the transitional arrangements for the phasing-
out of the pipeline and safety management plan levy.
There is no proposal to introduce new fees as a result
of the House’s consideration of these bills.
There are a number of amendments in the bill that,
while comprising only a small part of the legislation as
a whole, are nevertheless important. They include the
strengthening of the functions and powers of the Na-
tional Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority to more
effectively enforce the safety regime, the streamlining
and clarification of provisions in relation to multiple
titleholders to benefit regulators and titleholders alike,
improvements to enforcement and compliance aspects
of the regulatory regime and the clarification of title-
holders’ occupational health and safety duties in rela-
tion to wells. In essence, these bills underscore the
government’s commitment to the maintenance and
continuing improvement of a strong, effective frame-
62 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
work for the regulation of offshore petroleum and
greenhouse gas activities.
During the debate a number of related issues were
raised by members, and I seek to respond to a couple
of those. The issue of the Montara commission of in-
quiry, which was conducted by Mr David Borthwick,
was raised by most contributors to the debate. I con-
firm to the House that I received the commission of
inquiry’s report on 18 June this year. As I have said
publicly on a number of occasions, I remain committed
to releasing the report once the Australian government
has given proper consideration to its findings and rec-
ommendations. Further, I say again that I intend doing
that prior to Christmas this year. The House should not
forget that the report contains 105 recommendations
and 100 findings with wide-ranging implications for
government regulators and the offshore petroleum in-
dustry. The goal—and I think this is also the goal of all
members who participated in this debate—is to ensure
that Australia’s oil and gas exploration and production
operations are the best and safest in the world. I believe
that applying the lessons learnt from an instance of the
loss of well control here in Australia at the Montara
wellhead platform and another incident in the Gulf of
Mexico are vital to achieving that goal.
With that goal in mind, the Australian government is
paying heed not only to the Montara report but also to
the lessons to be learned from proper consultations
with the US administration and BP and other petroleum
companies on the incident in the Gulf of Mexico. We
as a government, in finalising our response to the Mon-
tara report, will continue to monitor closely develop-
ments in the US and share information from our ex-
periences with our American counterparts. The gov-
ernment remains very firmly committed to establishing
a regulator for offshore petroleum activities in order to
provide the community, the government and industry
with assurances that all petroleum activities meet
world-class standards.
I again indicate that our consultations to date have
seen support for the establishment of a national regula-
tor from industry and from all state and territory gov-
ernments other than that of Western Australia. I am
committed, in the finalisation of this legislation, to fur-
ther consultations with the opposition and to my minis-
terial counterpart in Western Australia. I think this is
important, because in bringing forward our proposed
model for the national offshore petroleum regulator we
will seek to ensure that we take industry with us and
because we remain committed to the establishment of a
national regulator by 1 January 2012 to ensure that the
petroleum industry meets world-class standards on
safety and environmental matters. More than ever, this
is in line with the expectations of the Australian com-
munity, and it has full industry support.
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
I turn now to the issue raised by the member for
Paterson: the operation of Advent Energy and some
potential drilling 55 kilometres east of Newcastle. I
remind the House that the discovery of new petroleum
reserves has the potential to reduce Australia’s energy
import dependence and increase supply certainty. This,
to be fair, was acknowledged by the member for Pater-
son as an objective of the government.
For those reasons, Australia’s offshore petroleum
regulatory regime places the onus on the operator to
demonstrate that all exploration for and extraction of
petroleum resources is undertaken in a safe and envi-
ronmentally responsible way. That said, all petroleum
activities in Australian waters are subject to the strin-
gent environmental standards and reporting require-
ments set out in the legislation and associated regula-
tions. These clearly include the bills before the House
this evening, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse
Gas Storage Act 2006 and the Environmental Protec-
tion and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. In accor-
dance with these legislative requirements, companies
undertaking petroleum exploration and development
drilling in Australian waters are required by law to
have an approved environmental plan containing an oil
spill contingency plan. Some suggest that we should
have a moratorium on exploration and development in
Australia. I simply say that to adopt that short-sighted
approach would undermine Australia’s energy security,
and no-one in this debate has suggested that this eve-
ning or in the lead-up to the debate.
That in turn takes me to the issue of Advent Energy
Ltd. For the information of the House, the permit was
granted on 24 June 1999 by the then Howard govern-
ment. It is held by Bounty Oil and Gas with a 75 per
cent stake and Advent Energy Ltd with a 25 per cent
stake as the operator through its wholly owned subsidi-
ary Asset EnergyPty Ltd. In July 2010 Asset an-
nounced an estimated resource of 13.2 trillion cubic
feet. This effectively means prospective gas across the
offshore Sydney basin, noting further assessment will
be required through well analysis. On 27 August 2010
Bounty advised the Australian Stock Exchange that the
exploration well site 55 kilometres east of Newcastle
had been finalised. The company has appropriately
contracted the Ocean Patriot semi-sub rig obtained
from an assignment contract with Apache to drill the
well to a depth of 826 metres in water approximately
140 metres deep. The well will test both the Great
White and Marlin prospects, which are now considered
to comprise the major undiscovered prospective gas
reserves across those two prospects.
In line with the requirements of the Offshore Petro-
leum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act, the approval of
petroleum operations is the responsibility of the desig-
nated authority, which also includes the New South
Wales department of mineral and forest resources. The
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
well operation management plan for this operation has
been lodged with the designated authority for assess-
ment. I remind the House also that the environmental
plan includes an oil spill contingency plan, which has
also been lodged with the designated authority. My
department advises that the New South Wales minister,
through his department, is currently holding commu-
nity consultations on the drilling which has included
distribution of the environmental plan to several re-
gional councils.
Mr Hockey—Who’s the minister?
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON—Mr Whan. I place
those facts on the record in response to the constructive
manner in which the member for Paterson raised these
issues this evening. He clearly indicated he was not
about demonising the industry because of its impor-
tance from an energy security point of view. I simply
remind the House that in terms of exploration and de-
velopment in Australia we have a very strong regula-
tory environment which is strengthened by the bills
before the House this evening.
The member for Groom also raised the question of
carbon capture and storage and its viability. I remind
him, as he is actually a significant supporter of the
Gorgon LNG project in Australia at the moment, that
not only is it the biggest investment in a single project
Australia has ever been the beneficiary of but it is also
potentially the largest commercial deployment of car-
bon capture and storage in the world. Clearly in the
foreseeable future there will be a change in the energy
mix in Australia. I personally expect that we will see a
growth in gas and in wind power. I also appreciate that,
whether or not the Greens or some environmental
NGOs like it, coal is also going to be a significant con-
tributor to energy security in Australia. For those rea-
sons, it is our responsibility to invest in research and
development related to the potential commercial de-
ployment of carbon capture and storage, not only with
respect to the operation and development of the LNG
industry in Australia but also with respect to the opera-
tion of coal fired power stations in Australia.
Our responsibility as a nation is not to seek to select
the best energy mix but to invest in appropriate re-
search and development activities which enable the
market to determine through the appropriate energy
mix over time. It is in that context, I remind the House,
that we as a government are therefore committed to
resolving a price on carbon. Without a price on carbon,
there is a lack of certainty for the purposes of invest-
ment in capital intensive assets such as those required
in the electricity sector. If anyone has any doubts about
that, they should speak to the electricity operators in
Australia at the moment, because they argue very
strongly that without a price on carbon we will be un-
able to make the necessary investment decisions going
to the energy security of Australia in the foreseeable
CHAMBER
63
future. New South Wales is a prime example of that,
because the last major investments in energy in terms
of coal fired power actually occurred under the Wran
government. As a result of Neville Wran’s leadership,
we have had the benefits of that investment for many
decades. The problem now is that, because of the de-
sire for Australia to have a reliable energy system, the
gap between baseload and peak energy Australia has
been significantly reduced, and over the next three to
five years we need to make some very fundamental
investment decisions with respect to the electricity sec-
tor in Australia.
With those comments, I commend the bills to the
House and express my appreciation of the constructive
manner in which the members for Groom, Paterson,
Capricornia, Corangamite and Lyons approached this
debate, because the petroleum sector is fundamental to
our economic future in terms of investment, training
and job opportunities in Australia in the 21st century.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (Batman—Minister for
Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism) (8.00
pm)—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
OFFSHORE PETROLEUM AND GREENHOUSE
GAS STORAGE (SAFETY LEVIES)
AMENDMENT BILL 2010
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 29 September, on motion by
Mr Martin Ferguson:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (Batman—Minister for
Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism) (8.00
pm)—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION
AMENDMENT BILL 2010
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 29 September, on motion by
Mr Shorten:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (8.01 pm)—This
government has an unhappy history on the subject of
64 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
superannuation. In late 2007, the then opposition prom-
ised to change superannuation ‘not one jot, not one
tittle’. Oh, how we remember the prophetic words of
Kevin Rudd in 2007 when, as Leader of the Opposi-
tion, he said he was not going to touch superannuation.
As is typical of Labor, it has broken that promise not
once, but on numerous occasions. For example, Labor
has halved the concessional contribution caps, penalis-
ing thousands of Australians who inadvertently ex-
ceeded them and undermining Australians’ incentives
to save for retirement. Having broken not just that
promise, the Labor Party then cut back the government
co-contribution payments for the poorest people. If my
memory serves me correctly that was in the 2008
budget, when they did not have to do it. Of course,
they were projecting a surplus in the 2008 budget. How
ambitious that was, that Labor should deliver a surplus
budget! Of course, they never have and I doubt they
ever will. But that did not stop the Labor Party, which
cut back on the co-contribution payments for those on
the lowest incomes. As if that is not enough—if that
does not break the promise of ‘not one jot, not one tit-
tle’—Labor mandated that industry funds be the de-
fault superannuation funds for the bulk of the modern
awards, thereby closing down competition.
I see in the chamber the member for Dobell, who is
not only a previous union official—so he would love
the industry super funds—but who was also the benefi-
ciary of union support during the recent election cam-
paign and during the 2007 campaign. In fact, all the
Labor members were. How do they pay back their un-
ion mates? They go and make the industry funds de-
fault funds under the modern award system.
Mr Hartsuyker—No competition!
Mr HOCKEY—No, you do not want competition
from the private sector. For crying out loud! Industry
funds? Bernie Fraser knows how to manage people’s
money. He made a living out of it during those glorious
days when he was at the Reserve Bank and upped in-
terest rates to record levels. No, put him in charge of
the nation’s superannuation—that would do the job.
Then, in a further break of the Labor Party’s commit-
ment to touch superannuation ‘not one jot, not one tit-
tle’, as Kevin Rudd said, the Labor Party promised to
tender the role of the superannuation clearinghouse to
the private sector. But, instead, they went to Medicare.
I thought Medicare had responsibility for refunding
payments out of the MBS to individuals. But, no, the
Labor Party, in its infinite monopolistic public sector
wisdom, said, ‘Let’s get Medicare to become the clear-
inghouse for superannuation.’
Mr Hartsuyker—No tender!
Mr HOCKEY—No, there was no tender. Why
would there be a tender? It is Medicare. Medicare is a
government owned monopoly. It is so obviously the
case that they would make Medicare the only clearing-
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
house for superannuation. This is Labor writ large.
Remember, they promised ‘not one jot, not one tittle’.
In that unique Rudd-like language in 2007 they prom-
ised not to touch superannuation, and then the tentacles
of socialism wrapped around the superannuation sys-
tem at the behest of the government as they sought to
deliver for their union mates in the industry funds but
also, more significantly, as they sought to get their
hands on Australians’ money. Of course, this is not just
in superannuation. Not only does the Labor Party want
to get their hands on Australians’ super, they want to
get their hands on Australians’ income. That is why
Labor increased so many taxes, from tax on alcopops
to taxes on cars. And that is why the Labor Party has
played around with a range of different concessions to
ensure that Australians end up paying more tax, not
less, to the government over the course of this govern-
ment’s two terms.
Typical of the Labor Party, they do not want to ad-
mit that they have broken a promise—oh no, they
would not admit that they have broken any promises.
Obviously there has been a sea of promises. Today we
had another illustration of a broken promise when the
Prime Minister said that they were going to open some
new detention centres, after having said before the
election that they were unnecessary. It is not just the
present Prime Minister or the previous Prime Minister
who has chosen to break promises made by the Labor
Party; it is the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer
who, in May 2009, said:
The government will reduce the generosity of some su-
perannuation concessions for those with greater private
wealth.
The cap on concessional super contributions will be low-
ered and the matching rate of the superannuation co-
contribution will be reduced temporarily.
That was 2009. In April 2010, the Deputy Prime Minis-
ter and Treasurer said:
We certainly didn’t breach any promise that we made
about superannuation.
He lives in this different paradigm, this different uni-
verse, old Swanny. He is out there in his own little or-
bit going around in his own little planet, where he says
there is no breach of any election promise—they didn’t
breach any promise because the words of the former
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd meant so little. They
meant not one jot, not one tittle—all those changes
they made to super never really happened. Well, they
did. They are in the budget. But still they say they
never really happened. He went on to say, and this
shows the absurdity of his claims:
We certainly didn’t breach any promise that we made
about superannuation. It is true that we changed the caps
because the caps were excessively generous, and in changing
them we did not breach any promise.
That is your Treasurer. Are you proud of this man?
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Sidebottom)—
No, he is not my Treasurer. You will speak through the
chair, thank you.
Mr HOCKEY—Speaking through the chair, I can
understand the Deputy Speaker disowning him.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER—Just direct your com-
ments through the chair.
Mr HOCKEY—To the member for Dobell and the
two new members here, the member for Bass and the
fellow in front of the member for Dobell—I am not
sure where he comes from—
Mr Mitchell—I took a seat off you!
Mr HOCKEY—What a rare moment that was. But
I say to you—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member
for North Sydney will direct his comments through the
chair.
Mr HOCKEY—I direct them through you, Mr
Deputy Speaker, to the three Labor members over there
and even to the member for Adelaide at the table, and I
would ask those members: are you proud of a Treasurer
who commits to keeping an election promise not to
touch superannuation and then says, ‘Well, we changed
the caps because the caps were excessively generous,
and in changing them we did not breach any promise’.
Isn’t there something ironic about that, or something
hypocritical, when this comes from the lips of the
Treasurer? He expects us to believe him on so many
different things. It is Orwellian; the ministry of truth—
I am telling you the truth; I am lying. That is what the
word of the Treasurer amounts to.
The net effect of this tampering and backflip has
been to undermine certainty and discourage Australians
from saving. And naturally enough—how can they
have confidence in a superannuation system, let alone
confidence in a government, that fails to keep its prom-
ise? It was with the government’s record of meddling
and interfering with superannuation in mind that the
coalition approached the Superannuation Legislation
Amendment Bill 2010. This bill is not a major reform
of the superannuation system. It will do nothing to in-
crease national savings. Nor does it address the impor-
tant reforms laid out by the Henry taxation review. This
bill essentially tidies up a few loose ends. It imple-
ments a range of measures and minor clarifications to
Australia’s superannuation system.
First, it gives effect to the 2010-11 budget measures
to allow for a transfer of unclaimed state and territory
public sector superannuation moneys to the Commis-
sioner of Taxation, as is the case for the private sector.
That does not affect individuals; obviously those indi-
viduals have not claimed their super, and that money is
sitting in state jurisdictions. Going to one place to
claim unclaimed super is a good idea. That will facili-
tate state and territory authorities and public sector su-
CHAMBER
65
perannuation schemes paying unclaimed super money
to the Commonwealth. This is a change to the current
situation, and we think it is a pretty good idea so we
will support it.
The bill also enables the taxation commissioner to
accept and to subsequently pay out amounts transferred
by state and territory authorities and public sector su-
per schemes. Importantly, individuals will still be able
to claim back their money from the Australian Taxation
Office at any time. It will also provide a gain to reve-
nue of $29.6 million over the forward estimates. What
a surprise! They are running a budget deficit in excess
of $40 billion. We think it is good from a procedural
perspective but, such a surprise, it is a little revenue
raiser for the Commonwealth as well. That should not
surprise anyone. The Association of Superannuation
Funds Australia claims:
The Commonwealth will not find it any easier to locate the
owners of lost super when compared with state bodies. This
illustrates that linking lost superannuation with new member
accounts remains an ongoing issue. Nevertheless, the meas-
ure has the benefit of facilitating more uniform treatment of
unclaimed money, and it is a one-stop shop.
I accept that. The second change will provide transi-
tional relief for income tax deductibility of total and
permanent disability insurance premiums which are
paid by superannuation funds. Super funds generally
take out death and disability insurance policies to in-
sure their risk for a liability they may incur to their
members. Legislative reforms in 2007 may have cast
some confusion over the deductibility of that insur-
ance. There was a clarification in 2009 to allow super
funds to claim income tax deduction for the TPD in-
surance premiums to the extent the policies have the
necessary connection to a liability of the fund to pro-
vide disability superannuation better.
This amendment will extend the commencement of
the 2007 changes to 1 July 2011, and that gives the
super funds time to switch administrative arrangements
over to the new requirements. This measure has been
discussed with the industry, superannuation and insur-
ance companies have been calling for clarification, and
we think it is a good idea. This aspect of the bill will
apply to the income years 2004-05 to 2010-11, and the
amendment is sensible.
The third change addresses the powers of superan-
nuation funds to acquire an asset in the event of a
breakdown of a relationship of a superannuation fund
member, without contravening the prohibition against
related-party acquisitions. It will, for example, allow a
trustee to acquire the actual asset rather than accept
cash or a replacement asset from the related party. The
measure will ensure that section 66 of the act is not an
impediment to separating partners achieving a clean
break from each other in terms of their super arrange-
ments.
66 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
There will also be additional minor clarifications to
the tax treatment of super that will allow an individual
to give a notice of intent to deduct a contribution to the
successor superannuation fund where the contribution
was made to the original super fund. It will allow em-
ployers to claim a deduction for super contributions
made with respect to a former employee within four
months of that employee ceasing employment and at
any time after the employee ceases employment for
contributions made to defined benefit interests.
It will also clarify that the due date of the shortfall
interest charged for the purposes of excess contribu-
tions tax is 21 days after the commissioner provides
notice of the amount payable, which is sensible. It al-
lows the commissioner to exercise discretion to disre-
gard or allocate to another financial year all or part of a
person’s contributions for the purposes of excess con-
tributions tax before an assessment is issued. Further-
more, it provides a regulation-making power to specify
additional circumstances when a benefit from a public
sector super scheme will have an untaxed element. In
addition, it will streamline references to the immigra-
tion secretary and the immigration department in rela-
tion to the disclosure of migration and citizenship in-
formation.
These amendments provide clarifications to the leg-
islation, in our view, and we believe they will improve
the operation of superannuation provisions in the in-
come tax legislation. So, in short, the coalition supports
the amendments because they are sensible, they are
practical and at the end of the day I think the industry
wants them to help reduce red tape.
But of course this does not address the more sub-
stantive issue of how we increase national savings. The
coalition accepts that as a nation we need to increase
national savings. And the starting point must be to run
a budget surplus. That is the fastest way this govern-
ment can contribute to national savings: to start run-
ning surplus budgets. And in doing so, instead of being
in the markets, borrowing money in competition with
small business operators, in competition with farmers,
in competition with larger operators—and therefore
effectively crowding out the markets—the best thing
this Labor government could do would be to get the
budget back to surplus.
Now, it is not just us saying that. It is the Treasury
providing that advice, through the various red books.
The department of finance is providing that advice.
The Reserve Bank and members of the Reserve Bank
are providing that advice. It seems to be every day that
credible economists are coming out and saying the best
thing the government could do when the economy is
running at full capacity, to take upward pressure off
interest rates, to prevent crowding out in the credit
markets, is to start doing something about getting the
budget to surplus faster. But of course this is a gov-
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
ernment that continues to roll out stimulus spending in
2012 for an economic downturn in 2008! It is a little
late! It is like trying to have a heart-start defibrillator to
get Lazarus out of the box three days after he died—it
is a little late. But this government is continuing to bor-
row money. This government is continuing to spend
money. It is running expansive fiscal policy at a time
when the economy is running at near full capacity,
therefore it puts upward pressure on inflation and it
puts upward pressure on interest rates.
The Labor Party just do not get it. Just as their pol-
icy on water is a mess, just as their policy in relation to
asylum seekers is a mess, just as their policy in relation
to climate change is a mess, so too is their treatment of
the Australian economy—confused, leading to delay
and uncertainty, leading to the point where Australians
are saying the government need to pull back on their
expenditure. We are now in a phase where the Reserve
Bank is about to go with interest rates beyond the
norm. You can have old Swannie every day, going for-
ward and saying, ‘Oh, well’—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Sidebottom)—
Order! The member for North Sydney—
Mr HOCKEY—‘look at the cash rates’—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! If you were not
shouting so much you would hear me. Would you
please use the correct name for the member and their
seat.
Mr HOCKEY—Sure. The correct name for the
member is Wayne Swan. His seat is Lilley.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER—Thank you. Use it.
Mr HOCKEY—Okay, Wayne Swan in Lilley, if
that is what you choose to hear.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER—Or ‘the Treasurer’.
Mr HOCKEY—The Treasurer. Thank you for the
short form, Mr Deputy Speaker—very helpful. I think
it is hugely relevant that the Treasurer himself does not
understand the ramifications of his own actions. From
day one he has been uncertain of the direction he really
wants to go. He comes into this place and he reads the
lines that are fed up to him by the advisers to the dis-
patch box, and he reads the lines that are fed to him out
of Treasury—not always exactly as fed out of Treasury,
but along the lines—and he thinks, ‘Mission accom-
plished.’ But no, you have to have an instinctive feel
for how things work. Had he had an extensive career in
the private sector, the Treasurer himself would under-
stand—
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
Mr HOCKEY—Or as my colleague the new mem-
ber for Herbert, who is experienced in the private sec-
tor, in small business, would know; as my colleague at
the table, the member for Cowper, would know—I am
not sure whether the member for Adelaide would
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
know. I don’t think the member for Dobell would
know. Have you guys ever worked in business? No.
I would suggest that on this side of the House we
know that you cannot keep spending more money than
you have, that each year, if you spend more money
than your revenue permits, you are going to be in a bit
of trouble. This is something that Labor is not familiar
with and the Treasurer himself is not familiar with. The
Treasurer promised a surplus in 2008 and failed to de-
liver. When they were first asked about this, about
when Labor will deliver their first surplus budget, they
said, ‘Ah, we will be three years early.’ Three years
earlier than what? ‘Well, three years earlier than we
had to predict a surplus in six years time.’ You cannot
deliver national savings if you do not have a surplus
budget as part of the equation.
Mr Craig Thomson—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a
point of order. I am enjoying the tirade that is coming
here but I am not sure it has got much to do with the
legislation that is before us. Certainly there is nothing
in the legislation relating to the state of the economy,
budgets and surpluses and those sorts of issues, and I
would ask that you bring the member back to the legis-
lation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Sidebottom)—I
know the member for North Sydney is very much
aware of the specific nature of this bill and amendment
and will stick to that.
Mr HOCKEY—Absolutely. As you know, Mr
Deputy Speaker, superannuation is about savings and
superannuation also contributes to national savings.
The member for Dobell, who I think is the chairman of
the economics committee, has just illustrated the
dearth, the shortage, the absence of economic skills in
the Labor ranks when he could not draw the fundamen-
tal link between superannuation as a savings measure
and the contribution to national savings. So I would
urge the member for Dobell to heed my words. Listen.
I know you struggle to—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for North
Sydney will speak through the chair and will address
the legislation.
Mr HOCKEY—I look forward to contributing. I
say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker: the government has no
plan whatsoever other than simply increasing the su-
perannuation levy from nine per cent to 12 per cent to
try and increase national savings. It is a lazy approach.
Even Dr Henry, in the now famous Henry review into
Australia’s taxation system, said there is a better way
and at the end of the day a more lucrative way for the
nation to increase superannuation by taking a different
approach to increasing the superannuation levy from
nine per cent to 12 per cent with some reform of the
taxation arrangements apply to existing super.
CHAMBER
67
Of the 138 recommendations in the Henry review,
the government chose to accept 2½ of the recommen-
dations. Within six weeks they dumped one of those
recommendations, the original version of the mining
tax, which left them with 1½ of the 138 recommenda-
tions. That is right up there with the success story of
the 2020 Summit, where I seem to recall a similar ac-
ceptance rate of recommendations. But I say to you,
Mr Deputy Speaker, that not only is superannuation
vitally important to the financial security of everyday
Australians and their families but, most significantly,
superannuation is important to our level of national
savings. At this crucial moment when we have the
most generous terms of trade in 50 years, we need to
be a nation that can start to fund ourselves, that can
start to fund our growth.
I fully accept that as a nation we have imported
capital; since 1788 we have been importing capital. I
accept that. We have had massive demand and need for
significant funding of capital infrastructure in this
country. And I do praise Bob Hawke as Prime Minister
of Australia, who was not only a very good Prime Min-
ister but also a good mate of mine and a constituent. I
would say that he deserves great praise for the intro-
duction of compulsory superannuation in Australia. I
am a believer in compulsory superannuation and it is a
significant contribution. The coalition government im-
plemented an increase in the superannuation guarantee
levy from, if my memory serves me correctly, six per
cent to nine per cent in the latter part of the 1990s. But,
as Dr Henry and the panel point out in the Henry re-
view, nine per cent is about right. This government, in
order to appease its mates in the industry super funds,
undertakes an approach to national savings that if it
were running surpluses would not necessarily be nec-
essary. I would say to you that if it heeded the recom-
mendations of the Henry review there would be a bet-
ter way to increase the pool of superannuation and at
the same time deliver longer term benefits to Austra-
lian superannuants.
What is of interest is the fact that there is a cost as-
sociated with the recommendation in the Henry review
on superannuation. I accept that. If we were not run-
ning last year the largest cash deficit in Australian his-
tory and this year the second-largest cash deficit in
Australian history, if we were not doing that, then, by
my Lord, I say that we would be able to afford a whole
lot of tax initiatives that reduced the tax burden and
provided a very real incentive for Australians to in-
crease their contribution to superannuation and in-
crease the benefits over the longer term of superannua-
tion. So Labor have taken, as they traditionally do, a
very lazy approach. You would appreciate this, Mr
Deputy Speaker Scott. They have taken a very lazy
approach to superannuation reform. This is not true
reform. Australians cannot see where they will be at
the end of it.
68 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The irony is that Dr Henry and even the Labor Party
themselves have identified that this initiative to in-
crease the contribution surcharge from nine to 12 per
cent is going to be at a cost to the budget over the
longer term. So why not be smarter and accept the rec-
ommendations of Dr Henry? Why not be smarter and
accept that you can improve the taxation arrangement
for superannuation without putting a greater burden on
Australian employers and employees?
We are going to hit the cathartic moment in the next
few years where, under the Labor Party, Australians
will be paying a new carbon tax and will be taking less
pay home with an increased superannuation contribu-
tion. And interest rates are going to be higher. This is
the classic combination that will end up being a perfect
storm for the Labor Party over the next two to three
years, because the cost of living for Australians is in-
creasing. It will be this government’s actions and deci-
sion making—nothing short of that—that will make the
everyday cost of living much harder for Australian
families. The carbon tax means that electricity and so
many other industries are going to be more expensive.
Higher interest rates mean that people are going to
have bigger mortgages, bigger credit card bills and
bigger phone bills, with so many people putting them
on their credit cards. Business is going to find it more
expensive to fund expansionary growth because every
day it will be out in the market competing with the
government, which is in the business of borrowing
$100 million a day to fund its fiscal expansion.
At the same time, above and beyond all of that, the
Labor Party are increasing the superannuation contri-
bution from nine to 12 per cent, which will mean that
many individuals will have less take-home pay. Well
done, Labor. All they could do is just cap it off with an
increase in the GST. That would be the firecracker on
New Year’s Eve. Labor have delivered to you all the
bangers in the last hour in the lead-up to midnight and
now they introduce an increase in the GST just to wrap
it all up and make sure that Australian families and
households are totally screwed by an incompetent gov-
ernment.
Mr CRAIG THOMSON (Dobell) (8.32 pm)—I
rise to speak on the Superannuation Legislation
Amendment Bill 2010. It is no surprise that the mem-
ber for North Sydney is opposed to increases in super-
annuation for working families and working people,
because the Liberal Party has always been opposed to
superannuation for working families and working peo-
ple. In Australia we have had superannuation in some
form for over a century, but by no means has that been
universal for most of that time. In fact, in 1974 the
Australian Bureau of Statistics conducted the first sur-
vey of superannuation and it came up with a pretty
sorry state. Only 32 per cent of the workforce was cov-
ered by superannuation and only 15 per cent of females
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
who worked were covered by superannuation. In the
private sector it was even lower. Only 24 per cent of
people in the private sector had super cover under the
conservative government that was in at that time. It
was not until 1985 that there was a major break-
through.
I also thank the member for North Sydney for point-
ing out the contribution that the union movement made
to superannuation in this country, working hand in
hand with the Hawke Labor government. In 1985 the
ACTU sought a three per cent employer superannua-
tion contribution to be paid in as an industry fund as
part of the national wage case claim with the then Aus-
tralian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Be-
fore that, access to superannuation was deeply inequi-
table. For the member for North Sydney to stand here
and rant for half an hour about the contribution that the
coalition made to superannuation simply flies in the
face of the facts.
He made some other incredible claims as well. The
first was that the stimulus package that this govern-
ment introduced was in some way a bad thing for Aus-
tralia. As we all know, the Australian economy has
come out of the global financial crisis better than any
other country in the world. We have come out of it be-
cause of the targeted stimulus package that was there.
The main point of the stimulus package was to ensure
that we created and retained jobs in Australia. As the
member for North Sydney would know, if you are con-
tributing to superannuation as part of having a job, you
need to actually have a job in the first place to contrib-
ute to superannuation. So national savings would have
been affected if we had had hundreds of thousands of
additional Australians out of jobs because of the global
financial crisis. That is something that even a school-
boy economist would understand, but clearly the mem-
ber for North Sydney does not.
He then tried to say that credible economists were
critical of the path that this government took. I defy the
member for North Sydney to come up with one credi-
ble economist who has not supported the stimulus in-
tervention that this government took in relation to the
global financial crisis. Whether it is international
economists or the IMF or domestic economists, they
have all said that this is the best targeted stimulus
package in the world, and that is why Australia is seen
as an economic marvel in terms of the way in which
we came through the global financial crisis.
But we should not worry about what economists say,
what the IMF says, what the Reserve Bank governor
says or what Treasury says, because according to the
member for North Sydney we do not need experts. We
should ‘run the economy by instinctive feel’. So let’s
not worry about the experts out there or the advice as
to what is the best thing for the Australian economy or
how we can keep people in jobs in Australia; let’s run
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
the Australian economy by ‘instinctive feel’. If that is
what the shadow Treasurer is proposing as the coali-
tion’s policy and their approach to economics, it is a
great thing that they are on the opposition benches and
not in charge of the treasury bench. Heaven help us if
we are going to ignore the experts and decide that this
great economy and great country of Australia is going
to be run by instinctive feel and we are not going to
listen to the experts who are offering advice and who
have said what a wonderful job Treasurer Wayne Swan
and this government have done to ensure that Australia
has come through the global financial crisis in a better
position than any other country in the world.
As I said previously, before the unions’ national
wage claim in 1985, only a minority of workers had
superannuation. These were mainly higher earning
white-collar workers, public servants and the defence
forces. In recognition of the need to develop strategies
to manage an ageing population, the then Labor gov-
ernment supported the ACTU’s claim. In February
1986 the commission confirmed that awards would
include contributions of up to three per cent to ap-
proved superannuation funds. Between 1986 and 1990,
superannuation funds rapidly increased, from around
40 per cent of employees to 79 per cent of employees,
as a result of the commission’s ruling.
But despite the rapid growth a number of problems
remained. The Labor government and the trade unions
made sure that there was real reform in superannuation.
There were considerable gaps in coverage in the pri-
vate sector. There was a lack of compliance with award
superannuation provisions. Not all employees were
covered by the awards, and three per cent superannua-
tion contributions were too small to significantly im-
prove the retirement income for many employees—
something that those on the opposite side, when they
have been in charge of the Treasury bench, have never
responded to and have never understood. They would
rather us go back to the days when only 15 per cent of
females had superannuation. That is the approach that
those on the other side take.
Those on this side take a very, very different view to
superannuation. We want to make sure that superannu-
ation is accessible to everyone, that is equitable, that is
not just for high income earners—white-collar work-
ers—but is available to all. We on this side are actually
proud of the relationship between the trade union
movement and the Labor Party in establishing compul-
sory superannuation in this country.
In response to the problems associated with award
superannuation, in recognition of its importance, on 1
July 1992 the superannuation guarantee was intro-
duced. The superannuation guarantee was designed to
be universal and compulsory, effectively extending
coverage to employees who had previously not had
access to it, requiring employers to comply and ena-
CHAMBER
69
bling a consistent increase in employees’ retirement
savings in line with the government’s retirement in-
come policy—an increase in national savings and an
increase in individual savings, creating dignity for
people once they reach retirement.
Again, I take you back to those figures. When the
coalition was in government, only 32 per cent of the
workforce was covered by superannuation, and only 15
per cent of females were covered by superannuation.
So for the member for North Sydney to come into this
place and lecture us about reforms in superannuation
and say that we have not done enough in terms of su-
perannuation and that we are not genuine about fixing
superannuation flies in the face of the history of com-
pulsory superannuation—the superannuation guaran-
tee—in this country. It also flies in the face of our
commitment to increase compulsory superannuation to
12 per cent. As I said, without the Labor Party, super-
annuation would be available only for those in white-
collar jobs, those in the defence forces and those with
high incomes.
This legislation goes to a number of changes and
improvements and builds on the long history and leg-
acy that Labor has had to superannuation. Firstly,
schedule 1 amends the Superannuation (Unclaimed
Money and Lost Members) Act 1999 and the Income
Tax Assessment Act 1997 to facilitate the transfer of
superannuation unclaimed moneys from state and terri-
tory authorities and public sector superannuation
schemes to the Commissioner of Taxation. The
amendments will also enable the commissioner to ac-
cept and subsequently pay out amounts transferred by
state and territory authorities and public sector super-
annuation schemes.
I note that the member for North Sydney is in favour
of this particular amendment, and it is a good thing that
the coalition has decided to support the amendment.
This amendment will allow for the transfer of four dif-
ferent types of unclaimed superannuation: former tem-
porary resident unclaimed superannuation in public
sector schemes, small and insoluble lost accounts in
public sector schemes, general unclaimed superannua-
tion in public sector schemes, and private sector un-
claimed superannuation which was paid to the states
and territories prior to 1 July 2007.
The amendments will operate by allowing public
sector superannuation schemes which have been pre-
scribed by regulation to be treated as if they were pri-
vate sector superannuation funds for the purposes of
different components of the unclaimed money legisla-
tion. Only those schemes which have been nominated
by the Commonwealth or the states and territories will
be prescribed in the regulations.
Schedule 2 of this bill concerns changes to income
tax deductibility of total and permanent disability in-
surance premiums paid by superannuation funds. Su-
70 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
perannuation funds commonly take out death and dis-
ability insurance policies to insure their risk for a li-
ability they may incur to their members, including
temporary or permanent disability insurance. The prac-
tice of superannuation funds obtaining such insurance
is consistent with the key objects of superannuation—
that is, to provide benefits to members in retirement or,
in the event of the member’s death, to the member’s
beneficiaries.
As the fund contracts with insurance providers, any
payout under an insurance policy due to the occurrence
of an insured, permanent disability event will be made
to the fund. A fund can only provide a benefit referable
to that payment—and any other preserved benefits—to
the member if a condition of release of benefits has
been satisfied. There may be circumstances where, as a
consequence of the definition of permanent disability
used in the policy, a fund receives an insurance pay-
ment due to the occurrence of an insured event but no
condition of release has been satisfied. With Better
Super, the provisions regarding deductibility of TPD
insurance premiums paid by the superannuation funds
were rewritten and transferred from the Income Tax
Assessment Act 1936 to the ITAA Act 1997, with ef-
fect for 2007-08 and later income years.
Industry representatives have indicated they con-
sider that, under the ITAA 1936 provisions, a premium
was fully deductible if paid for a policy insuring
against some form of permanent disability and that this
practice has continued after the 2006-07 income year
under the provisions of the ITAA 1997. Industry’s
practice has been to claim deductions for premiums
relating to all TPD policies—notwithstanding that, in
some cases, claims under such policies may result in
payouts to the fund trustee in circumstances where the
member could not satisfy the ‘permanent incapacity’
release condition.
To sum up schedule 2: the provision of the transi-
tional arrangements will minimise the disruption to the
superannuation industry. This will allow superannua-
tion funds enough lead time to make the necessary ad-
ministrative changes to apply the current provisions of
the ITAA 1997 regarding the deductibility of TPD
benefits as of 1 July 2011. Funds that have claimed the
narrow deduction under the current law will have the
opportunity to vary their tax return but this is not re-
quired. On the expiration of the transitional arrange-
ments the current, narrower, tax deduction will be
available to superannuation funds.
Schedule 3 of the bill deals with superannuation and
relationship breakdowns. These amendments allow for
a trustee or investment manager of a regulated super-
annuation fund to acquire assets from a related party
where the acquisition occurs as the result of the rela-
tionship breakdown of a member.
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
This bill is in the long line of reforms that Labor
governments have made to superannuation, starting
most notably in 1995 with the historic agreement be-
tween the then Labor government and the ACTU to
pursue compulsory superannuation through the Con-
ciliation and Arbitration Commission, in the historic
test case that was run in that year. Since that time it has
been the Labor governments that have gone about
making sure that people who work will have dignity
when they retire, by making sure that there are ade-
quate funds for their retirement through compulsory
superannuation. This is something that those on this
side of the parliament are very proud of. It is a tradition
that we are continuing with this legislation. It is some-
thing that we want to continue to do, and we want to
increase that compulsory superannuation from nine per
cent to 12 per cent to make sure that all Australians
have access to proper retirement funds, that they are
able to retire with dignity and have enough money in
their retirement. This is something that only a Labor
government will do. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (8.47 pm)—As we
have heard, the Superannuation Legislation Amend-
ment Bill 2010 contains several sets of amendments to
the existing superannuation law. The amendment that I
want to focus on specifically in my remarks tonight is
one that is included within schedule 4. It is one which
would allow the Commissioner of Taxation to exercise
a discretion for the purposes of excess contributions
tax before an assessment is issued. The fundamental
point I want to make tonight is that to grant the com-
missioner a discretion in this way to deal with an as-
sessment of excess contributions tax is an inadequate
response to a serious problem. The serious problem is
the fact that Australians can be exposed to very high
rates of penalty tax in circumstances where they make
an innocent and inadvertent mistake in the amount they
contribute to superannuation. We need to consider why
it is that the commissioner is required to be given such
a discretion in the first place. The reason is that the
policy approach of this government in relation to con-
tribution limits for superannuation is a real mess.
As we know, there are limits on the amount that any
Australian can contribute to superannuation so as to
enjoy the benefits of concessional treatment. The con-
cessional treatment, of course, is that moneys which
are paid into a superannuation fund are taxed at the rate
of 15 per cent rather than the individual’s marginal tax
rate. As we also know, the policy reason underlying
this concessional treatment is to encourage people to
make provision for their own retirement through build-
ing up a significant superannuation balance so that they
are not reliant on a government funded pension. As we
have heard speakers from all sides remark tonight, that
underlying policy enjoys bipartisan support. The im-
portant point is that the concessional tax treatment is
only available up to the concessional contributions cap.
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Rudd government, in one of its early acts in this
area, reduced this cap. People aged 49 and below had
the cap reduced from $50,000 to $25,000, and those
aged 50 and above had it reduced from $100,000 to
$50,000. This was a poor decision. It was a bad piece
of public policy. It was done with limited notice and
represented a fundamental change to the rules of the
game. It threw the existing salary sacrifice arrange-
ments of many thousands of Australians into disarray.
Somebody who had been making regular annual con-
tributions at a level above $25,000 was suddenly hit
with a significant change in the rules—and severe con-
sequences, in the form of excess contributions tax at
31.5 per cent on all amounts in excess of $25,000.
Every time the government tinkers with the rules
about superannuation, it reduces confidence in the sys-
tem. So the fact that this was a serious change to the
rules in the middle of the game was a problem in and
of itself. But there is a further and more serious prob-
lem, which is that the rules that now apply are so ca-
pricious that they can penalise people very severely if
they make an innocent error. For example, many Aus-
tralians do not understand that the superannuation
guarantee contributions contribute towards the conces-
sional contributions tax. Why would they be expected
to understand this? The regulations around this area are
eye-glazingly complex and most Australians would be
very surprised to know about the capricious conse-
quences which can be visited upon them if they make
an innocent error.
How might such an innocent error occur? There are
several ways. A person may be salary sacrificing a
large amount of money into their superannuation fund
and may simply and in good faith make a calculation
error about the amount they are able to contribute
without attracting the excess contributions tax. Another
scenario is that an employer may make additional con-
cessional contributions to the employee’s superannua-
tion fund in ignorance of other contributions made by
the employee. The combination of both the employer
and employee contributions may trigger the excess
contributions tax. Alternatively, a person may have a
windfall and may make an error by contributing too
much of that to their fund without realising the serious
consequences that follow. Or—recognising the reality,
which is that most Australians do not follow these
complex laws themselves but instead rely upon advis-
ers—the person making the contribution may simply
receive bad advice. Yet quite remarkably an individual
who has made an innocent error does not simply have
the option of having the contributions returned and
being subject to the normal taxation arrangements.
The measure proposed in the bill before the House
today to give the commissioner extra powers to exer-
cise discretion in some of these circumstances is a ban-
daid solution to a serious design flaw. Many Austra-
CHAMBER
71
lians would be quite shocked to know that if they make
an innocent mistake in these circumstances they can
potentially be exposed to consequences including a 93
per cent marginal tax rate. To explain that: if you make
a concessional contribution or a contribution which is
intended to be a concessional contribution and you ex-
ceed the cap of $25,000 you are, as we have seen, ex-
posed to the excess concessional contributions tax of
31.5 per cent. But if you are also making a non-
concessional contribution—that is to say, a contribu-
tion that is made out of post-tax income—you also face
a limit. If you exceed that non-concessional contribu-
tion then any excess amount attracts tax of 46.5 per
cent.
The interaction of these provisions means that in
certain circumstances Australians can be exposed to
marginal tax of 93 per cent on a superannuation contri-
bution. That will happen if you make a payment that
exceeds the $25,000 limit and also happens to tip you
over your limit for non-concessional contributions.
Once it is over the $25,000, the incremental component
over the $25,000 is automatically deemed to be non-
concessional. If that inadvertently takes your non-
concessional amount over your non-concessional limit
you then hit that 93 per cent marginal tax rate. Let us
be plain: this is a badly drafted provision which visits
harsh and unfair consequences upon Australians who
make an innocent mistake, a mistake which is all too
easy to make given the eye-glazing complexity of the
superannuation provisions.
One of the reasons that this has turned from a theo-
retical to a significantly more present risk is the Rudd-
Gillard government’s capricious reduction in the con-
tribution limits. This has turned a problem which was
in the main theoretical into a real problem that can
cause anguish to many thousands of Australians. What
is the Gillard government’s bold solution to this prob-
lem contained in today’s bill? The Gillard govern-
ment’s bold solution is to give the commissioner extra
discretion. This bill gives the commissioner the power
to make a determination to disregard or reallocate con-
tributions for the purposes of excess contributions tax
without first issuing an excess contributions tax as-
sessment. I look at that supposed solution with consid-
erable suspicion. I believe that many Australians with
experience of dealing with the Australian Taxation Of-
fice would share that suspicion. This is a second-rate
solution to the underlying problem.
As we have heard from the shadow Treasurer, we
support the measures in the bill, including this one, on
the grounds that it is the best that the government has
put forward. But when you have a law which is flawed
you should deal with the fundamental flaw. Australians
should not be put in the position where they can be
exposed to a sudden-death penalty tax that could arise
due to an innocent mistake.
72 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
According to the Taxation Office’s statistics, more
than 35,000 Australians breached the contributions tax
rules for the 2008-09 year. It is very likely that the
number will be bigger in subsequent years if current
trends continue, I would suggest. You have a very large
number of Australians being exposed in these circum-
stances to considerable mental anguish. They may have
sold a small business or may have received a one-off
bonus and set out to put the proceeds into superannua-
tion so as to provide for themselves and suddenly they
find that they could be facing the prospect of a very
large proportion of those proceeds being confiscated by
the tax office. It seems to me that in these circum-
stances it is not good enough for those Australians to
be fobbed off with wafty assurances that the commis-
sioner might exercise his discretion. Australians have a
right to expect better from this government, and it is a
shame that the solution that has been put forward to
this problem in this bill is a second-best solution rather
than one that addresses the fundamentally unacceptable
and capricious nature of these provisions.
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (8.58 pm)—I thank the House
for the opportunity to speak on this very important bill,
the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2010.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—The
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and the
member for Mackellar will stop the across-the-table
chatter. They will give the member for Oxley the cour-
tesy that he deserves.
Mr RIPOLL—Thank you, Deputy Speaker Scott,
for controlling the conduct of the House. I appreciate
it. I am expecting a point of order any moment. This is
a very important piece of legislation. It puts in place a
range of changes that need to take place after the long
12 years of a Howard government that continually
made changes to the superannuation rules, almost as if
superannuation were a plaything. Superannuation is an
exceptionally important part of the Australian retire-
ment income system. It was put in place by the Austra-
lian Labor Party when in government a little bit over
20 years ago to ensure that ordinary working people
have the opportunity to save for their own retirements
so that they can be independent in their own retire-
ments like other people in the community.
We on this side of the House believe in superannua-
tion. We have introduced a superannuation guarantee
on this side of the House. We have continued to im-
prove its performance over the years, as we are doing
tonight in the amendments we have before us. I will
take note of just a few of the things that have been said
by other speakers about the changes we are making,
but I particularly want to refer to the fact that these
changes are in order to stabilise the superannuation
system that we have in this country and follow on very
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
clearly from the Henry review’s report on the sustain-
ability of superannuation in this country and also the
review that was done by Jeremy Cooper on structural
efficiencies in our superannuation system.
If any government or anybody in this country is se-
rious about a decent, fair, equitable and independent
retirement—and we know that people ought to be
given that opportunity—we need to get the rules right.
We need slow, methodical, strategic change that is sus-
tainable. Unfortunately that is not what we got under
the previous administration. The attitude of continual
and elastic, rubbery change that blew out of proportion
the rules and conditions under which people could con-
tribute to their superannuation really did set about put-
ting superannuation on a trajectory that was unsustain-
able. What we are doing tonight in these amendments
is making sure that we have a superannuation system in
this country that can survive in the future and provide
for individual people.
I will also draw to the attention of the House a small
point from a little report called the Intergenerational
report just to put into context the issue of sustainability
which we all face and which we as a government face.
By 2050 it is projected that there will be twice as many
65-year-olds as there are today. In 2050 there will be
four times as many people aged over the age of 85 as
there are today. Those are pretty stark facts. But the
fact that really sticks in my mind is that in 1970 there
were about 7.5 people in the workforce for everyone
aged 65 years or older. Today there are about five peo-
ple in the workforce for everyone aged 65 years or
older. But in 2050 that figure is expected to be only 2.7
people in the workforce for everyone aged 65 years or
older. That concerns me. That is an issue that govern-
ment should deal with and should deal with properly.
We need to provide for a stable, secure, long-term su-
perannuation system which is sustainable a long way
into the future rather than what may suit a small pro-
portion of people who make specific contributions to
their superannuation at particular points in time. I think
that is the key bit that was missing in the debate that
we heard from members of the opposition.
We need to get the settings right, and we need to
leave them there. We need time for people to absorb
them so that they are not confused, so that they do not
have to deal with complex superannuation. Superannu-
ation ought not to be so complex that you have to deal
with it on a daily basis. For most people, it should be
the case that they can deal with their superannuation on
an annual basis or on a periodic basis as is their re-
quirement rather than having to deal with continual
government change and tinkering at the edges—the
sort of changes we saw from the previous Howard
government, which were just completely unsustainable
and which distorted the capacity of our superannuation
system into the future.
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
We have heard the very disingenuous debate of the
other side. Most of it, although not all, was around the
politics of this. On the one hand they were saying,
‘Yes, we will support this bill, but of course there are
some problems with it,’ but on the other hand they
have the view that in opposition you can never trust the
ATO, Treasury or any government department. That is
somewhat bizarre because it was not the case when
they were in government. You cannot have it both
ways. Where the rubber hits the road in this chamber is
that you cannot have it both ways. If the professional
people in those bureaucracies were good enough when
the other side was in government, they ought to still be
good enough today. If they could trust the ATO when
they were in government collecting people’s taxes then
they ought to be able to trust them now. You cannot
have it both ways. If we have a professional bureauc-
racy and a professional Public Service in this country
then we should not come into this place and deride
them every time it suits our agenda or when they
somehow do not match up with our particular political
leanings.
These amendments actually make some very impor-
tant changes to do with unclaimed money and mem-
bers’ lost money. It is quite a significant figure. While
the regulation does allow for private superannuation
funds to transfer those unclaimed moneys from state
and territory authorities across to the Commissioner of
Taxation, that is not the case in the public sector—but
it ought to be. We make those changes to make it clear
and transparent and for there to be the ability to trans-
fer those moneys across to the Commissioner of Taxa-
tion.
In saying that, it is important for people to also note
that at any time they can claim for any lost funds that
they discover or any moneys that have been unclaimed.
It does not change that particular provision. People are
still able to access their funds at any time in the future.
More than that, what concerns me is the actual sheer
size of the pool of unclaimed moneys and lost mem-
bers’ funds, and in the future there is more work for us
to do in dealing with those issues as well.
There is also transitional relief for income tax de-
ductibility of total and permanent disability insurance
premiums that are paid by superannuation funds. This
is to get right the transitional arrangements that are in
place so that premiums are paid in the correct amounts
and also to provide a greater scope to deduct those total
and permanent disability insurance premiums which
are paid by the funds themselves.
There are also a range of other minor amendments
which allow the public sector superannuation schemes
to be prescribed by regulation to be treated as if they
were a private sector scheme. That draws the rules that
apply in one sector across to the other and makes sure
that only those schemes which have been nominated by
CHAMBER
73
the Commonwealth or the states and territories will
actually be prescribed in the regulations.
There is a particular amendment relating to the op-
tion of transferring both existing stocks and future
flows of unclaimed superannuation to the ATO. That
amendment will facilitate more uniform treatment of
all those unclaimed moneys in both the private and
public sector funds and I believe it will improve the
likelihood of reuniting individuals with their lost or
unclaimed superannuation. As I said earlier, this does
not prohibit individuals from being able to claim from
the ATO, at any time in the future, the money that be-
longs to them. This measure will have a positive reve-
nue gain, which is estimated to be just under $30 mil-
lion for the ATO over the forward estimates. There are
a number of other transitional measures under the leg-
islation which ensure that these things are done in ac-
cordance with the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936
and a range of other acts so that they accord with regu-
lation and law, but these amendments do not limit the
operation of the current law in any particular way.
There was a point raised about the discretion of the
commissioner to make certain judgments in terms of
excess allocation of funds to a superannuation fund and
the tax implications of that. Our amendments clarify
the due date for the shortfall interest charge for the
purpose of excess contributions tax, which is 21 days
after the commissioner provides notice of the amount
that is payable. There is also provision to allow the
Commissioner of Taxation to exercise discretion to
disregard or to allocate to another financial year all or
part of a person’s contributions for the purpose of ex-
cess contributions tax before an assessment is issued. It
seemed that the only concern that the opposition had in
relation to that was an issue of trust.
The issue was raised of whether you could possibly
trust the ATO to get this right. If individuals make a
mistake, the opportunity always exists to revisit that
mistake, just as it would if the ATO made a mistake. So
it is not so much an issue of trust but of whether an
error is made. If an error is made there is an opportu-
nity for individuals to revisit that error in a number of
ways. I think the mechanisms provided are appropriate
discretions for the Commissioner of Taxation and will
actually make dealing with concessions and overpay-
ments in relation to superannuation contributions eas-
ier.
People should pay a great deal of attention to the
rules around superannuation, and if it is complex—and
I accept that it is—they need to seek good advice. This
is not an area where people should, without being fully
informed, make ad hoc, irregular payments, not under-
standing the full tax consequences or implications of
what they do. You would not do that in relation to any
of your other financial dealings—be it tax, contribu-
tions to other funds, deductions or investments—and I
74 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
do not see why superannuation contributions should be
any different. A person needs to inform themselves
properly. They can get professional advice on the
proper mix of their superannuation contributions, their
retirement goals and their needs to make sure that they
get that mix right. This is not something that should be
just played at as a game or where people should make
some sort of guess and hope to get it right. It is too im-
portant in terms of people’s lifelong contributions and
in terms of tax implications not only for individuals but
also for government.
The reason that people make those extra contribu-
tions and the reason that there is a generous conces-
sional contribution limit is that it is an attractive way to
save. It attracts a lower rate of interest and costs less
than any other investment vehicle. Therefore it is un-
derstandable that government needs to be able to effec-
tively control, manage and support the system—which
is supported by the tax system and by the taxpayer—to
ensure that it is fair for everyone who contributes to it
and to ensure that the tax paid at the start, during and at
the end is fair and that people fully understand the sys-
tem. I accept the issue of complexity and I accept that
people ought to inform themselves fully, but I do not
accept the opposition’s proposition that it is just a mat-
ter of trust and that you could not trust the Commis-
sioner of Taxation to exercise discretion on these mat-
ters.
I note that the opposition does support these
amendments. They are good amendments and I think
they add more weight to a whole range of very impor-
tant and necessary improvements that this government
is making to our superannuation system for the long
term, for its sustainability, for its ability to provide for
people in their retirement. From modelling and a range
of research, we understand what the future of this
country will look like with respect to the number of
people who will remain in the workforce compared to
the number of people who will be retiring in 30, 40 and
50 years time. I congratulate the government and the
minister for their good work in this area. I know that
this is good legislation and it has the support of the
House.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Assistant Treasurer
and Minister for Financial Services and Superannua-
tion) (9.13 pm)—in reply—Firstly, I would like to
thank all those members who have contributed to this
debate on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment
Bill 2010. It is a good thing that the Minister for Immi-
gration and Citizenship is at the table, because when he
was minister for superannuation he contributed to a lot
of the reforms which I am helping to implement now. I
would also like to acknowledge the member for Oxley,
whose work in terms of financial planning and other
matters has added a lot to this debate.
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
The amendments contained in schedule 1 will allow
both state and territory authorities and public sector
superannuation schemes to transfer unclaimed super-
annuation to the Australian Tax Office. This will facili-
tate the centralisation of unclaimed superannuation
administration with the ATO rather than with both the
ATO and the numerous state authorities. Unclaimed
superannuation typically arises when a fund cannot
locate a member who has reached age-pension age and
is entitled to a payment. Individuals will still be able to
claim back their money from the ATO at any stage. The
legislation will operate so that it only applies to those
Commonwealth, state and territory schemes that are
prescribed in the regulations. These amendments will
also enable the ATO to subsequently pay out and apply
the correct taxation treatment to amounts transferred to
the states and territories and to Commonwealth public
sector schemes.
These amendments will mean an ongoing gain to
revenue estimated at $29.6 million over the forward
estimates. The revenue gained from the measures will
result from the transfer to the ATO of existing un-
claimed superannuation held by the states and territo-
ries. The transfer does not in any way reduce an indi-
vidual’s entitlement to that money; they will be able to
claim their unclaimed superannuation back from the
ATO at any time. Centralising administration in the
ATO will mean that it will be easier for individuals to
track down any unclaimed superannuation they may
have.
Schedule 2 amends the tax laws to provide transi-
tional relief to superannuation funds, enabling them to
claim a broader deduction for total and permanent dis-
ability premiums—TPD premiums—for the income
years 2004-05 to 2010-11. This amendment will allow
lead time for arrangements to be put in place by the
superannuation industry and enable funds to comply
with the current law at the conclusion of the 2010-11
income year. Currently, superannuation funds can only
claim a tax deduction for TPD premiums to the extent
that their policies have the necessary connection to a
liability of the fund for providing a disability superan-
nuation benefit. The term ‘disability superannuation
benefit’ only relates to a narrow range of TPD events.
While the current law is consistent with the objectives
of retirement income policy, it is misaligned with in-
dustry practice.
Both the term ‘disability superannuation benefit’ in
the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and the term
‘death or disability benefits’ in the Income Tax As-
sessment Act 1936 are given a broader meaning under
the transitional arrangements. Under the transitional
arrangements, these terms relate to a greater number of
TPD events, which will be described in regulations.
The government has consulted with industry on the
content of these regulations. This amendment will give
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
certainty to the superannuation industry and facilitate
compliance with the current law when the transitional
arrangements cease.
Schedule 3 amends the Superannuation Industry
(Supervision) Act 1993 to allow the trustee of a regu-
lated superannuation fund to acquire an asset from a
related party following the breakdown of their relation-
ship. These amendments ensure that separating parties
will be able to obtain a clean break from one another in
terms of their superannuation matters. They also pro-
vide for equitable application of the in-house assets
transitional arrangements. The amendments will re-
move potential discrimination and inconsistent treat-
ment in the current application of the law.
The amendments contained in schedule 4 will allow
individuals to provide deduction notices to a successor
superannuation fund where they have made a contribu-
tion to an original superannuation fund. The amend-
ments will also allow employers to claim a deduction
for superannuation contributions made for former em-
ployees four months after the employee ceased em-
ployment and at any time where the contribution is
made to a defined benefit fund. The legislation will
provide clarification of the due date for the existing
shortfall interest charge in relation to excess contribu-
tions tax and will allow the Commissioner of Taxation
to exercise the discretion to disregard or reallocate con-
tributions for the purposes of excess contributions tax
without first issuing an excess contributions tax as-
sessment.
The amendments will provide a regulation-making
power to specify additional circumstances when a
benefit from a public sector superannuation scheme has
an untaxed element. The legislation will make a minor
amendment to streamline references to the immigration
secretary and immigration department. These amend-
ments are necessary to ensure the continued smooth
operation of the superannuation provisions of the in-
come tax laws. This bill deserves the support of the
parliament, and I commend it to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Assistant Treasurer
and Minister for Financial Services and Superannua-
tion) (9.19 pm)—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
CHAMBER
75
TELECOMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION
AND INTELLIGENCE SERVICES
LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2010
Referred to Main Committee
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (9.19 pm)—by
leave—I move:
That the bill be referred to the Main Committee for fur-
ther consideration.
Question agreed to.
AIRPORTS AMENDMENT BILL 2010
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 30 September, on motion by
Mr Albanese:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of the Nationals)
(9.20 pm)—I begin my remarks at this late hour on
theAirports Amendment Bill 2010 in the knowledge
that I will have to complete my contribution on some
other day in the week ahead. The Airports Act was
passed in 1996 and established a framework for the
regulation of Commonwealth leased airports. The act
sets out the requirements for airport master plans and
also sets out development plans over a 20-year period
which are updated every five years or earlier. Master
plans are intended to establish the overall direction of
the development of an airport site. The planning proc-
ess reduces the potential for conflicts with surrounding
communities, allows for the public to be informed of
developments at the airport in question and enables
them to be consulted on these developments. It also
helps to provide guidance to the community about
what kinds of developments are likely to occur at the
airport in question during the period ahead. The Air-
ports Act also requires that major development plans
be prepared for specific development proposals. Both
master plans and major development proposals require
a period of public consultation, after which the plan is
submitted for ministerial approval.
Commonwealth leased airport properties operate
under Commonwealth jurisdiction, whilst their sur-
rounding areas remain under state and local jurisdic-
tion. This very fact gives rise to considerable conflict.
There are often disputes in local communities about the
operation of the airport. There are community groups
that rise up in concern about noise and other issues on
an airport property, and yet that airport property is ab-
solutely vital and essential to the economic welfare of
the local community and of the state and nation. Air-
ports are essential community infrastructure. They are
a vital part of ensuring that our nation is able to be
connected to the rest of the world and that we are able
to trade and to operate in association with our partners
around the world.
Conflict often occurs between communities and air-
ports. In most instances, particularly in the case of our
76 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
major airports, they have been in place for many
years—in most cases many generations. Indeed, the
airport in Sydney, Kingsford Smith airport, was one of
the first airports in our nation. So they were there. They
have been established in a location. They may have
begun as just a simple landing field, but now they
house intense development, a concentration of traffic
and people movement and a range of commercial and
other associated activities. Industry has identified with
the aviation sector in particular and in the interim resi-
dential suburbs, commercial areas and the like have
been constructed around them.
You can always say that the airport was there first
and anyone who moved to the area did so in full
knowledge that the airport was there, that they should
have known that it was going to be noisy. Indeed, the
argument often extends further, saying that in reality
airports and aircraft have now become much quieter,
that they are better managed than they ever were previ-
ously and that for those reasons some of the impact has
declined. In addition, to extend that argument, housing
properties are often down-valued—as, for that matter,
is other land in the area—because of the fact that there
is this activity in the community, and for that reason
people are able to afford to buy houses in an area like
that one where they otherwise might not have been.
To counter that argument, it is also reasonable to say
that community values change. Community standards
change. Our expectations about the comfort we expect
in our lifestyle are different from what they once were.
Noise, traffic or industrial activity around your home
which may once have been tolerated is no longer ac-
ceptable. We have to accept the fact that community
standards change. A classic example, though, of how
the conflict can work itself out in real life is the Badg-
erys Creek airport site in Sydney. This was clearly ac-
quired as a second airport site for Sydney. Everyone at
the time felt it was a reasonable choice. Everyone has
known ever since that day that Badgerys Creek was to
be the site of Sydney’s second airport, but that did not
stop the New South Wales state government and plan-
ning agencies from allowing development in that area
which was simply incompatible with its eventual use as
an airport. There is no doubt even to this day that, if
you could take away all the things that have been built
around it, Badgerys Creek would be a good site for an
airport. But the reality is that people have moved in,
development has moved in and the communication
lines which were so essential to Badgerys Creek oper-
ating as was originally intended have been cut by un-
sympathetic development approved by the New South
Wales government.
That is an example of how the planning process has
run astray. We even have the current government run-
ning off in its usual style, appointing committees, and
again going out on a search for another airport site for
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Sydney. In reality, every government for the last 20
years or so has looked at all of the sites that might po-
tentially be available in Sydney for the airport and have
always come up with the same reasons why the various
ideas will in practice not work. It is a tragedy that the
site in Sydney identified by far-sighted people as the
best place for its second airport has been so compro-
mised that the current government has now come to the
view that it can never be developed.
I am not sure we have even learnt that lesson, be-
cause there are still other examples around the country
where developments are being approved by state and
local governments in locations which will compromise
the future operations of airports. Even in Canberra the
proposed development of the Tralee residential area is
inevitably going to have a significant impact on Can-
berra airport. In making a judgment about whether that
kind of development should occur, we need to recog-
nise the importance of the Canberra airport to this city
and to our national capital. We must not take steps
which are likely to compromise its future use for the
purpose for which it is dedicated. The airport is impor-
tant to this city and it would be a tragedy if, for some
reason or other, large-scale development unsympa-
thetic to the existing airport were to compromise the
airport’s future operations.
So it is vital that in planning airports there is coop-
eration between all tiers of government. The Com-
monwealth is the owner of the sites. They are leased to
various operating agencies. The Commonwealth ex-
pects those sites to be used as airports into the future.
There has been substantial development. The Com-
monwealth knows that having functional airports is
vital to our national economy. The state and local gov-
ernments are keen to encourage development, but they
must also recognise that the airports are job creators
and are vital to the economies of their own regions. So
we should not be undertaking commercial develop-
ments, residential developments or other activities
which are incompatible with their neighbour, which in
this case happens to be an airport.
Complaints about noise and other issues frequently
arise from people who live around airports. I have to
acknowledge, as the member for Pearce has com-
mented frequently in relation to the Perth airport, that
sometimes those complaints have not been handled as
well as they should. Sometimes the communities have
not been appropriately consulted about changes to
flight plans and alterations to noise levels. Airports
must also be conscious of ensuring they develop, main-
tain and nurture a good relationship with the people
who live around them. At some airports, housing is
very close to the airport surrounds. In Adelaide the
nearest house is 600 metres from the runaway. Clearly,
that means you have a very close neighbour whose
interests have got to be taken into account. In other
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
places there are larger buffer zones. Melbourne and
Brisbane airports in particular benefit from those larger
zones.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—
Order! It being 9.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Adult Education
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (9.30 pm)—More
than 20 years ago South Australia designated four high
schools as adult re-entry sites. Over the last 20 years
these sites have continued under Labor and Liberal
state governments. These schools have transformed
lives. They have offered people a second chance at a
high school education. In the most recent South Austra-
lian budget the Labor state government decided that,
for people who are aged 21 and over, adult re-entry
will no longer be an option—it will no longer be sup-
ported by the state Labor government. Hamilton Sec-
ondary College in my electorate is one of these
schools. It is a school which has really focused on adult
re-entry and has given many people an opportunity to
get another start—people who did not have a good ex-
perience at school to begin with.
This decision has been made in order to save $20
million over three years. It is one of the biggest cuts in
the state government’s education budget. It is short-
sighted and has been poorly considered. It says a lot
about the modern Labor Party that they are actually
cutting education to people who left school early and
did not get those opportunities. The Labor Party talks a
lot about social cohesion and about education and em-
ployment opportunities for people, yet by cutting adult
re-entry these people will miss out. Adult re-entry was
designed to give adults over the age of 21 a second
chance. These are people who for reasons often beyond
their own control—it could have been for financial,
emotional or mental health reasons—did not complete
school the first time round. For many of these students
it takes a lot to go back to school; it takes a lot to go
through the gates. They have made a decision to finish
high school, to get an education, so they are in a better
position to gain long-term employment and make a
significant contribution to the community. Now the
state government is saying that these people will not be
supported—that these people are on their own.
On radio recently the state Minister for Education,
Jay Weatherill, likened adult education to a WEA
course. He was suggesting that these people were do-
ing it as a hobby, as an interest, rather than as a second
chance to get a foot in the door to further education.
There has been significant public outcry over the gov-
ernment’s proposal. A number of constituents have
contacted my office. The Australian Education Union
CHAMBER
77
has condemned the state government, saying that they
are undercutting opportunities for thousands of South
Australians and that this decision cuts across all con-
cepts of access and opportunity.
I have met with staff at Hamilton Secondary Col-
lege, a designated re-entry site in my electorate. There
are more than 1,650 adults enrolled at Hamilton Col-
lege; more than 80 per cent are 21 or over. Most of
them are recipients of School Card, a means tested in-
dexed allowance that acknowledges the need to support
persons who are financially disadvantaged. The gov-
ernment’s decision will affect not just Hamilton but
Marden Senior College, Para West Adult campus and
Thebarton Senior College. Teachers at these colleges
have built up expertise in adult education. That exper-
tise will now be disbursed.
Ironically, at the same time the state government
were announcing this $20 million cut to adult educa-
tion we find that education bureaucrats from DECS
were racking up a $100,000 entertainment bill, which
is something like a sevenfold increase over five years.
This is obscene. It says a lot about the modern Labor
Party that they do not regard as a priority giving a sec-
ond chance of education to people who are vulnerable
or who are disadvantaged. It is time that the state Labor
government revisited this decision. It is a poor deci-
sion. They have cut off opportunities for some of the
poorest people in our community when they should be
supporting these people having a second chance at
education.
Centrelink
Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon) (9.35 pm)—
Yesterday, the member for Canberra in her first speech
made mention and paid tribute to public servants and
the important job they do. That caused me to remember
the important job that public servants do in my elector-
ate. I thought I would share some thoughts on that and
talk about my local Centrelink officers. Approximately
40 local employees in the two customer service centres
in Burnie and Devonport provide face-to-face access
for the community and customers in relation to about
140-plus different payments and services. Services are
also available to the community through Centrelink’s
national call centres—25 of them in fact—and through
its online services via the Centrelink website. These
customer service centres provide services to 43,739
customers within the Burnie and Devonport regions.
Five Centrelink agents and one Centrelink access point
are present in rural, regional and remote locations in
my electorate to enhance customer access to Centrelink
services.
Specialist services are also provided by a range of
employees through visiting services, seminars and one-
to-one support and advice, including via the Centrelink
community engagement officer, the multicultural ser-
vices officer, the Indigenous services officer, the rural
78 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
services officer, a social work service and financial
information services officers. As you can see, Centre-
link has a full suite of services available to its custom-
ers.
Services are delivered to mutual customers in part-
nership with a range of service providers within the
community including, for example, educational institu-
tions, a wide range of state government agencies, local
community sector emergency relief providers, emer-
gency shelters and other agencies providing housing
support, support services for various groups including
youth, people with disabilities, carers, older Austra-
lians, refugees and Indigenous Australians, local coun-
cils and Job Services Australia providers.
I have many recent examples of positive outcomes
from partnering with other service providers on the
north-west coast of Tassie. They partnered with Burnie
City Council to organise the Burnie Jobs Expo in Au-
gust 2009 and they organised the Centrelink Skills and
Jobs Expo in Devonport in July 2010. These expos
were held as a consequence of the large job losses ex-
perienced in our region. They coordinated the north-
west jobs, training and education forums in Devonport
and Burnie in April 2010, and responded to redundant
workers in companies including Tas Paper, McCains,
Tascot Templeton and Caterpillar. They are also con-
tinuing to work with Burnie Polytechnic, targeting both
potential and current customers attending their ‘return-
ing to study’ and ‘preparing for work’ courses. An in-
troduction is provided to the group regarding Centre-
link’s online services, followed by one-on-one assis-
tance to navigate the Centrelink website to explore po-
tential entitlements and/or online servicing opportuni-
ties. This partnership allows Centrelink to engage with
some of the more vulnerable customers in a relaxed
environment. Other activities include continuing to
build relationships with Youth Justice, exploring
strategies for partnering to provide positive outcomes
for youth at risk in our local community, and working
with the local hospitals to cater more effectively to
individual customer needs, looking at what services we
need to put in place for customers as they exit hospital.
They are just some of the examples of the terrific
service that our local Centrelink service providers offer
to their customers, and I am sure those experiences are
shared by other members of this House in their own
regions. It is important that we do recognise the terrific
work of public servants, not just in Centrelink but also
in this building and also, as the member for Canberra
rightly pointed out, in this capital city itself. I found
some of the facts and figures in relation to Centrelink
and the services they provide nationwide to be quite
staggering. Indeed, there are $84.2 billion worth of
payments in the nation, 313 nationwide customer ser-
vice centres, seven million customers, $32.7 million
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
worth of phone calls and 114 million letters. (Time ex-
pired)
Murray Electorate: Echuca Hospital
Dr STONE (Murray) (9.40 pm)—The first patient
was admitted to Echuca Hospital, on the banks of the
mighty Murray River, in 1882. In 1890 a new south
wing was built. In 1907 an operating theatre, nurses
home and doctors accommodation were constructed.
You are probably expecting me to continue with this
happy history right up to modern times, telling the
Australian people through this parliament how the
population of the city of Echuca and its twin town
across the river, Moama, now have a modern, up-to-
date hospital serving the 19,000 locals and hundreds of
thousands of tourists who come every year to this des-
tination to water ski, to relax, to fish and very often to
get married on the historic wharf.
In fact, thousands of local people will rally this
Thursday to protest that there has been no new bed
built in the hospital since 1962—that is right, not one
new bed over almost the last 50 years. The population
has grown enormously over the last 20 years, as you
can imagine, and it is expected to grow by 18 per cent
over the next 25 years on the Victorian side and by 40
per cent across the river in Moama.
The Victorian Department of Human Services re-
cently reported that the region served by Echuca Hos-
pital, now called Echuca Regional Health, compared to
the rest of the state has a higher rate of cancer for both
men and women, a higher rate of cardiovascular dis-
ease for males and a higher rate of diabetes for males.
We need good health services.
Do not get me wrong—the staff and administrators,
the volunteers and the support services do a magnifi-
cent job but they struggle to attract and retain special-
ists and professionals when they must work in virtually
Third World accommodation and conditions. The hos-
pital needs a total rebuild. It is literally falling apart. It
is like a rabbit warren, with old louvre windows, bath-
rooms shared by accident and emergency patients, and
women in the process of giving birth. Women tell hor-
ror stories about trying, between their contractions, to
help elderly people on walking frames squeeze past
them in noisy corridors.
Conditions are so bad that in winter patients have to
bring their own heaters from home to stay warm in
their beds in the wards. The old-style buildings may
look picturesque, but try offering modern medical ser-
vices out of l9th and mid-20th century structures,
patched together and presenting unacceptable stan-
dards. The Echuca-Moama community is sick and tired
of being overlooked and forgotten especially when
they see other regional hospitals in places like
Bendigo, Ballarat and Geelong get new funding to
build adequate facilities—and, yes, they are all mar-
ginal seats—while the desperate plight of this hospital
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
continues to be steadfastly ignored. The 565 staff de-
serve better. They cannot be expected to continue to
work in such conditions.
The master plan for the new hospital is well ad-
vanced, with some government support, but a plan is
not worth the paper it is printed on if it does not trigger
a building event. On 9 September, Minister Nicola
Roxon said on ABC GM radio that funding would go
to those hospitals that showed public support for im-
provement of their facilities. While this revealed a
strange way to set priorities, the Echuca-Moama com-
munity wants to inform the Minister for Health and
Ageing that in 2007, during the worst drought on re-
cord, they raised $50,000 to link the emergency de-
partment to GV Health Pathology. In 2007 they raised
over $24,000 in a single bike ride, the Murray to
Moyne, to fit out a multipurpose health promotion van
for the region. The Moama Bowling Club has raised
$30,000 for a colonoscope. Echuca Regional Health
has converted a close by aged care facility to student
accommodation for tertiary health students studying
with Melbourne University. They have $2.7 million of
the $5 million this project needs.
This regional twin town and city of Echuca-Moama
is doing everything it can to try to make do. But the
fact is it is now a state of emergency for this vital
health infrastructure. The state and federal govern-
ments cannot continue to overlook them. So at 10.00
am on 21 October Echuca will stop to rally for a new
hospital . If I was not in parliament, of course I would
be there, with my neighbour the member for Farrer
beside me representing Moama.
Minister Roxon has been invited to Echuca to in-
spect this hospital, she has been invited to the rally and
she has been invited to accept a deputation on this mat-
ter—something she is not keen to do. We are saying
please, Minister Roxon and the Gillard government,
think carefully about this regional hospital’s needs. You
say you care, but enough is enough. This is a state of
emergency.
Newcastle Institute for Energy and Resources
Ms GRIERSON (Newcastle) (9.45 pm)—I rise to
pay tribute to Professors Paul Dastoor and Behdad
Moghtaderi and Dr Elham Doroodchi, from the new
Newcastle Institute for Energy and Resources, at the
University of Newcastle, in my electorate. Professor
Dastoor and the husband-and-wife team of Professor
Moghtaderi and Dr Doroodchi were finalists in the
ABC’s New Inventors program in September. In fact,
of the five finalists, two were from the University of
Newcastle.
Professor Dastoor, from the university’s Priority Re-
search Centre for Organic Electronics, featured in the
grand final with his organic solar cell paint. Professor
Dastoor has developed semiconducting polymers capa-
ble of catching energy into a water based paint that can
CHAMBER
79
be printed or coated onto plastic sheets that can be
placed on the roofs of houses. In the long term this
technology will make it possible to directly paint a roof
or building surface with solar cells, but printed solar
cell technology could be available in as little as three
years with myriad applications. This is exciting stuff.
Solar paint would empower households across the
country to generate their own electricity in a more af-
fordable and sustainable way. This technology has the
potential to reshape the energy infrastructure of Austra-
lia and the world.
The second finalists from the University of Newcas-
tle’s Priority Research Centre for Energy, Professor
Behdad Moghtaderi and Dr Elham Doroodchi, featured
their GRANEX geothermal power generator.
GRANEX delivers a 40 per cent improvement in both
thermal efficiency and power generation on conven-
tional power plants. GRANEX also increases the
amount of electricity that can be generated from low-
grade heat sources such as geothermal and industrial
waste heat. Stephen de Belle, the Managing Director of
Granite Power Pty Ltd, the company that has partnered
with the team on the development of GRANEX, has
said that ‘the performance of GRANEX would trans-
form the power generation sector’. As we transition
towards a more sustainable Australia in which we need
to meet the renewable energy targets of 20 per cent
renewable energy by 2020, I am extremely proud that
Newcastle scientists and energy companies are leading
the way in new technologies.
These two achievements build on the university’s
success earlier in the year in the Vestas Winnovation
Challenge, a global wind energy competition in Den-
mark. University of Newcastle engineering student
Chris Rowe, along with his partner from the University
of Toronto in Canada, beat a field of 40 finalists from
13 countries by devising an electricity generation sys-
tem that tempered hydroelectric power with wind-
generated electricity.
These successes are a testament to the excellence in
innovation and energy research at the University of
Newcastle, and I am pleased that the federal Labor
government has contributed to this success. Both of
these successful innovations now sit under the research
umbrella of the Newcastle Institute for Energy and Re-
sources, which was established in June this year
through a $30 million endowment from the Australian
government’s Education Investment Fund under the
leadership of the Gillard Labor government. By com-
mercialising its research in next-generation energy
production, the institute will play an important part in
helping to modernise Australia’s industries in order to
improve energy efficiency and reduce our carbon emis-
sions.
I am delighted that the new director of the institute
is Alan Broadfoot. Alan’s track record in manufactur-
80 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ing—particularly as the former CEO of AmpControl,
which is the largest power engineering firm in the
Southern Hemisphere—and his lifelong commitment to
continuous learning, innovation, research and success-
ful enterprise can now all come together to lead what I
have no doubt will be a world-leading energy and re-
sources institute.
Newcastle is rapidly evolving and continuously re-
newing itself, remaining in constant step with the pre-
sent and with the future. It is home to the Clean Energy
Innovation Centre, the Australian Solar Institute and
the CSIRO National Energy Centre and now hosts the
Smart Grid, Smart City initiative. Newcastle has de-
veloped a reputation as Australia’s leading clean en-
ergy technology and research centre, and it deserves it.
As we transition towards a more sustainable and
greener economy, in which we use and manage our
resources responsibly while getting the most out of
them for the Australian community, the University of
Newcastle, in my electorate, is playing a formative
role. I again congratulate Professors Paul Dastoor and
Behdad Moghtaderi and Dr Elham Doroodchi for
showcasing to all Australians on the New Inventors
final program what we in Newcastle already know
about our expertise and ingenuity.
Murray-Darling Basin
Mrs MIRABELLA (Indi) (9.49 pm)—I rise to
speak on the issue of the guide to the draft Murray-
Darling Basin Plan, a plan that potentially represents
the single greatest threat of devastation to regional
communities across Australia. It was supposed to be a
positive plan. It was supposed to be a plan that would
return the basin to health. But what we have seen is a
hastily put together, ill-conceived plan that has not had
the basic homework completed.
Labor have had more than enough time to produce a
plan that sets out a path to reform but, as we witnessed,
they sat on their hands for over a year, taking 18
months to even establish the authority. It comes as no
surprise that the authority produced a fatally flawed
report, because after 18 months of delay they had little
time to conduct the necessary work required. The delay
in establishing a proper process has only led to a very
flawed and inadequate guide, which has led to great
uncertainty and great, understandable, anxiety.
The guide itself was supposed to be released before
the election. But, true to form, a government drowning
in its own secrecy suppressed the information in an
attempt to fool the electorate. This mob are so trans-
parent. They will say anything; they will do anything.
Every single word will have a double meaning. They
will treat the electorate with utter contempt. The reason
Labor hid the guide during the election campaign is
now so crystal clear: it was a dog of a plan. Even with
their limited care and limited knowledge and under-
standing of rural and regional issues they could see that
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
it was a dog of a plan, and it would be a dog of a gov-
ernment that would try to implement any sort of plan
that reflected the guide.
But herein lies the problem. During the election
campaign when questioned on how the government
might respond to the plan the Prime Minister quite of-
ten stated, ‘We will allocate money as necessary to
implement the plan.’ So there you have it: sight unseen,
the government commits to it. In typical phoney con-
cern the government is now using smooth words and
soothing tones from afar to con farmers but it is too
gutless to actually appear in person at meetings and
listen to rural communities face to face.
Consider for a moment some real facts from real
communities. The Ovens catchment in my electorate of
Indi is one of the most efficient and productive food-
producing systems in the country. It is a major con-
tributor to the Murray-Darling Basin system—the
north-east provides 38 per cent of the water into the
basin—and it returns between 95 and 99 per cent of its
own inflows back into the system. Irrigators in the Ov-
ens only take 14 gigalitres a year, a minuscule less than
one per cent of total flows. But under the guide to the
draft plan the authority has proposed to cut this irriga-
tion entitlement by up to 71 per cent, so it is 71 per
cent of less than one per cent that will gut agricultural
businesses that rely on irrigation in the catchment.
It is unrealistic, and we saw from today’s estimates
that, when questioned, Mr Freeman from the Murray-
Darling Basin Authority noted that the Ovens catch-
ment scenario as I have described it was the type of
‘perverse outcome’ that the authority would have to
consider. And why didn’t they prepare the research and
do their homework so that we did not have these per-
verse outcomes? He also went on to say that in relation
to town consumption ‘recycling and reuse need to be
looked at’ and ‘we are flagging the idea that some of
these community water systems need to be reviewed
because of the potential for alternative sources in those
townships through reuse’. Which communities will
have to reduce their consumption? Which communities
will have to engage in reuse? Are you going to dis-
criminate, and why are you doing this in communities
that are such efficient users of water? The fact is that it
is being done because the authority had little time and
the government has not really given much care to a
proper and deep analysis upon which to base such an
important plan.
The argument that the fault all lies with the Water
Act is erroneous and misleading. In fact, section 43
requires the authority to produce ‘socioeconomic
analysis on which the proposed plan is based’. So this
is just an attempt by a government that cannot even
accept responsibility for electrified roofs to shift blame
to the coalition.
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
China
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (9.55 pm)—The
communist government in Beijing is one of the world’s
most opaque. In recent months its inscrutable mask has
cracked slightly to reveal a regime debating its future.
The award of the first Nobel Prize to China, the Nobel
Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, led to the expected recrimi-
nations from the Chinese Foreign Ministry and the ar-
rest of Mr Liu’s wife.
Far more important, however, than the reaction of
the 10 per cent of the Chinese communist iceberg
above the water is the 90 per cent below the water.
There are growing and public calls at the highest eche-
lons of China for political reform.. Prime Minister Wen
Jiabao, according to Fairfax’s well-informed corre-
spondent John Garnaut, has spoken of political reform
seven times in the last 50 days. China’s popular South-
ern Weekly newspaper features Mr Wen on its front
page saying the will of the people for political reform
is irresistible. ‘I will not fall in spite of a strong wind
and harsh rain and I will not yield to the last day of my
life,’ said Mr Wen. His strongest pro-reform remarks
were made on CNN a fortnight ago but they have been
blacked out by the mainstream Chinese media, sug-
gesting they were made without full leadership consen-
sus. According to Du Doazhen, interviewed in the re-
formist Yang Huang Chu Qui, Wen has the backing of
Hu Jintao himself. The Communist Party cadre Du
claimed that Wen and Hu say their aim is to beat down
the tiger blocking the road to political reform and
jointly open the grand curtain of China’s reform.
Liu’s award of the Nobel Prize and the perestroika-
like stirrings that I have referred to in the leadership in
China show how foolish and short term are the ac-
commodationist arguments made by Professor Hugh
White. In a controversy ranging across Australian
Quarterly, the Asian Wall Street Journal, the Austra-
lian and the Australian Financial Review, I have
agreed with Professor White that Australia has yet to
come to grips with China’s return, as it should, to great
power status. Yet his thesis that Australia and the US
should accommodate rising Chinese power by aban-
doning criticisms of China’s democratic and human
rights failings is made almost instantly foolish by the
Liu Xiaobo Nobel award and by the struggle for free-
dom at the top levels of the Chinese Communist Party.
According to Professor White:
America will have to deal with China as an equal … That
means no more lecturing China about dissidents, Tibet or
religious freedom … no more lecturing China about its fail-
ure to meet US expectations on matters such as Iran, Sudan
and North Korea.
As I argued in the Australian Financial Review, this is
not treating China as an equal; this is a deliberate sur-
render of the values that have made the US and Austra-
lia both free and prosperous.
CHAMBER
81
Many in China agree with me. Only last week an-
other open letter was signed by more than 100 Chinese
scholars, activists and lawyers, strongly applauding Liu
Xiaobo’s Nobel Peace Prize and citing Mr Wen’s re-
cent comments in support of reform. ‘China should
join the mainstream of civilised humanity by embrac-
ing universal values,’ said the open letter. ‘Such is the
only route to becoming a “great nation” that is capable
of playing a positive and responsible role on the world
stage.’
Liu Xiaobo’s Charter 08, endorsed by 350 leading
Chinese intellectuals, is modelled on Charter 77, which
we all remember was founded by the great President of
the Czech Republic, Vaclav Havel, and played an im-
portant role in the downfall of the one-party state in
Czechoslovakia and Eastern Europe. Whether Liu
Xiaobo’s Charter 08 will be followed by a similar wave
of democratisation in China is yet to be seen, but un-
fortunately it looks like some Australian academics and
their narrow-minded business colleagues see profit as
their only aim in China and they are the only ones ig-
noring these great moves for China to democratise. I
congratulate, as do most Australians, Liu Xiaobo on his
wonderful award of the Nobel Peace Prize and I con-
gratulate the Chinese Prime Minister, Wen Jiabao, and
all of those Chinese intellectuals and academics who
strive for the same human rights and freedoms we en-
joy here in Australia.
Fadden Electorate: School Choirs
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (9.59 pm)—I rise to ac-
knowledge the outstanding achievement of two senior-
school choirs in the Fadden electorate. The first is the
Labrador State School choir, conducted by Mr Hank
Lewerissa, which will be opening the Armor All Gold
Coast 600 V8 supercar race this Saturday in the po-
dium track precinct in magnificent Surfers Paradise.
They will perform the national anthem live on Channel
7 at 1.30 pm this Saturday. It will be broadcast to over
27 million viewers worldwide, including seven million
viewers in Australia alone. Mr Lewerissa and his senior
choir, who I understand are all quite rightly a little
nervous and anxious but excited at the same time, were
chosen joint winners with the AB Paterson College
choir—conducted by Mrs Candace Kruger—of the
Gold Coast Schools Star Search run by V8 Supercars
Australia. Labrador State School will perform on Sat-
urday and AB Paterson on Sunday. Labrador State
School is the only state school in Australia to have re-
ceived such an honour. Each school received a cheque
for $3,000 from V8 Supercars Australia. This is an out-
standing achievement for both senior-school choirs as
they have worked extremely hard. I for one am very
proud of each and every one of them and I congratulate
conductors Mr Lewerissa and Mrs Kruger for their
dedication, time and effort.
82 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Let me give you a little of the background of both
schools so that you too can appreciate what they have
achieved. At the Labrador State School you will see
playgrounds for both young and old. You will hear
children swimming in a heated pool. You will feel a
sense of joy, as I do, in seeing how children’s learning
needs, academically, physically, emotionally, spiritu-
ally and socially, are met by a professional, committed
staff. You will be thrilled to be an audience and listen
to the junior and senior choirs. You too will marvel at
the skill of the stage, junior and senior instrumental
bands. As you walk into the school you will sense chil-
dren playing in a happy, friendly and safe way.
You will also sense the respect the community has
for the ANZACs and the Indigenous culture on the
Gold Coast. You will join me in being excited about
the facilities and grounds this school has to offer, so
much of them by way of the hard work of the teachers
and the P&C. You will love the way the school has
regular celebrations of success in its large community
hall. As you walk past the classrooms you will hear a
hum of kids learning. You will be excited to see tech-
nology in the classrooms. And in the distance you will
see a group of parents actively using the parent room.
You will be amazed at the number of volunteer parents
supporting the children in the classroom. You see, at
Labrador, they care not only for the children but for the
whole family and the school community, which is an
incredible credit to Principal Brian Ragh and his dedi-
cated staff.
Likewise, at AB Paterson College, which aims to be
a school developing young men and women of charac-
ter as leaders now and for the future, you will come
across a school pursuing excellence. The college
strives to achieve everything through challenging and
supporting students to develop the intellectual charac-
ter necessary to become passionate about the ongoing
pursuit of learning, to have the skills and confidence to
succeed in an increasingly complex world and to be-
come committed to creating positive futures for the
good of all through leadership and active participation
in their communities. The mission of the college under
the great leadership of Dawn Lang is to challenge the
individual to achieve and to act with purpose and char-
acter.
They are both great schools with excellent principals
and teaching staff. They both deserve the rich reward
that this weekend will bring as they sing at the great
event on the Gold Coast. It is certainly my pleasure to
acknowledge these two choirs tonight and it is cer-
tainly my pleasure to seek leave to table in this place
the names of those outstanding conductors and their
students so that the nation can also share in my joy at
their achievements.
Leave granted.
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Kingston Electorate: McLaren Vale Regional
Awards
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (10.04 pm)—I am
very pleased to stand here tonight to congratulate the
winners of the McLaren Vale Regional Awards, which I
was very pleased to attend last Friday night at Hardys
Tintara Winery. The idea of these awards is to recog-
nise businesses and individuals in the local area who
have been doing more than is required to make the re-
gion not only a wonderful place to live but also a great
place in which to do business. While often we recog-
nise McLaren Vale as a great place for wine and
food—and I am sure everyone in the chamber does—
there are a lot of other businesses in the local commu-
nity servicing the local region and also making it a
great tourist destination.
At these awards there are many nominees. The
awards are run by the McLaren Vale Business Associa-
tion, which has a membership from a whole range of
businesses and services in the local area and especially
focuses on local businesses that need to operate and
serve the McLaren Vale region. The McLaren Vale
Business Association is made up of volunteers who
dedicate a lot of time to promoting businesses and tour-
ism in the local area. These business awards are one
way that the business association celebrates businesses
in the area. I was pleased to attend and I have to say
that the enthusiasm in the room and the excitement was
the most I have seen for some time. I have never been
to the Academy Awards but I imagine that if I had I
would have seen much more enthusiasm at the
McLaren Vale Regional Awards than at the Academy
Awards. That is the positive attitude that these business
owners and individuals put into their businesses. It was
a great opportunity to celebrate with all of the small
businesses.
These awards have been going for nine years and
have grown in stature every year. With the community
and businesses being involved in the nominations,
there were over 80 nominations that I am aware of for
only 10 different categories of awards. So this year was
a very much contested award. I have been told that the
judges had a very difficult choice.
It was a wonderful night, because we were celebrat-
ing not only local businesses but also the involvement
of other community groups. The staff and students
from Tatachilla Lutheran College provided wonderful
entertainment and delicious food. A number of differ-
ent areas were recognised. These included manufactur-
ing and trade, home based businesses, professional
services, retail and new businesses. The awards also
recognised individuals. The ‘best employee’ was Jan
Carpenter, who has provided an outstanding service at
the McLaren Vale Chiropractic Centre. The ‘best youth
employee’ was Chris Thomas, who works at Willunga
Tyre and Battery Service. Chris and his friends were
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
really excited by the night. With young people like
Chris around, there is certainly a very positive future
for McLaren Vale. The individual customer service
award went to Jan Tuitt from Australia Post, who de-
livers parcels in the local area. The joke was made on
the night that there are very few places that Jan has not
gone to; she knows where everyone in the area lives.
That has meant that she has been able to provide great
service.
So some really wonderful people were acknowl-
edged, and it was really exciting. But, of course, there
can only be one winner, and that was determined by a
vote from the winners of all the categories on the night.
The winner, by popular vote, was Artel Gallery and
Giftware in McLaren Vale. This is a small family busi-
ness that stocks all local produce—crafts, cards and a
whole range of local giftware. It is a wonderful place to
visit and certainly improves tourism in the area.
I will conclude by congratulating the McLaren Vale
Business Association and all the volunteers, including
David Cavanagh and Sandra Sharp, who put a lot of
work into the night. I wish them all the best for the
coming year. (Time expired)
Gippsland Lakes
Ms Sally Chatfield
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (10.09 pm)—Mr
Speaker, I take this opportunity, being the first time I
have appeared before you since the election, to con-
gratulate you on your re-election as a local member
and also your election to high office here. I look for-
ward to seeing you continue to serve this place with
such great distinction.
I have risen before in this place to talk about the fu-
ture of the Gippsland Lakes and express my concerns
about the way the lakes are being managed and the
concerns I have for this magnificent waterway. I think
it is important, as a local member at the start of a new
term, to re-emphasise my commitment to making sure
that both state and federal governments understand the
importance of the Gippsland Lakes to the social, cul-
tural and economic future of my region. I have been
disappointed at the lack of ongoing funding and the
lack of commitment from the state Brumby govern-
ment beyond the previous budget round. I also have to
express my concerns that the federal government has
not made any allocation beyond the last round of $3
million, which has now been exhausted.
Like many others, I am frustrated with the delays. I
am encouraging my community to demonstrate its sup-
port for the Gippsland Lakes by supporting a commu-
nity action day and engaging in some practical envi-
ronmental work in the townships of Lakes Entrance,
Paynesville, Eagle Point, Raymond Island and Metung.
It is a chance for everyone who loves these magnificent
Gippsland Lakes to get together and demonstrate their
CHAMBER
83
support for the lake system and the catchment by pick-
ing up rubbish and helping, by practical action, to high-
light our concerns for the future for the waterway.
I was approached by a local resident by the name of
Tim Bull. The Bull family name is very famous around
the Gippsland Lakes. Tim’s is a fourth generation fam-
ily on the Gippsland Lakes. His family name is syn-
onymous with Bulls Cruisers, a charter business but
also a design of boat that is very popular with the boat-
ing fraternity. Tim also just happens to be the Nationals
candidate for the state seat of Gippsland East. It was
Tim’s idea to encourage the community to get involved
in the community action day to demonstrate our sup-
port for protecting and enhancing the catchment and
the lakes. I am working very closely with Tim on or-
ganising this day, and I think it will be well supported
by the broader community.
A lot of rubbish has blown up on the foreshore of
towns around the lake system, whether it has been
washed off streets through the stormwater system or
come off boats and collected via the tidal action, with
the prevailing winds blowing it into certain areas of the
foreshore. We really want to clean it up ahead of the
summer season, particularly for the tourists who come
to our region and make such a major contribution to
our community.
As I said, we are targeting quite a few areas on No-
vember 7 this year. We are really encouraging Gipp-
slanders to get involved in this program and demon-
strate to governments that we are ready for action and
call on them to support us in the activities we are un-
dertaking.
In the time I have left to me I would like to reflect
on a more positive story. This may alarm you, but I am
now the second most famous person in the township of
Lakes Entrance. For a while there I was the most fa-
mous, but Sally Chatfield, a young apprentice hair-
dresser from Lakes Entrance, has rocketed to fame
over the past two months on Channel 7’s program X-
Factor. It is no surprise to the people of Lakes En-
trance that Sally has been recognised in this way. Sally
has been appearing since she was seven years old at
our carols by candlelight and at our New Year’s Eve
fireworks displays, so there is a sense of paternal pride
or maternal pride—whether a father or a mother in
Lakes Entrance, we all feel some pride in this young
lady and her achievements. Her own mum and dad are
bursting with pride, as you would expect, to see her
achieve such great things on a national scale.
Naturally, the people of Lakes Entrance are getting
behind Sally, and I am encouraging them to do so. I
think she has got to the final six now. My children keep
me informed on a nightly basis how the program is
going. Sally has an extraordinary voice, and she is also
an extraordinary young lady in her own right. She is a
lady who has been recognised in the past in our own
84 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
township as the ‘young citizen of the year’ at the Aus-
tralia Day ceremony, because she has always been will-
ing to donate her time to contribute her great vocal
skills to some of those community events I referred to.
Her father, Kenny, is a mate of mine. I have played a
bit of golf with him—although the way I play golf we
do not spend that much time together; we seem to be
on opposite fairways most of the time. Kenny and
Sally are great Lakes Entrance people. I believe Sally
is a real inspiration to other young people in regional
communities. She has demonstrated that no matter
where you have come from—whatever your back-
ground is and whatever battles you might have had in
life—it is possible to go on and pursue your dreams.
Sally has aimed high and is continuing to chase her
dream. I wish her every success in the remainder of the
competition.
Page Electorate
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (10.14 pm)—I am following
someone very famous, so I am not too sure how I will
go with my adjournment speech!
Mr Chester interjecting—
Ms SAFFIN—Well, I am pretty famous in my elec-
torate! And that is what I want to talk about—my elec-
torate of Page and some of the wonderful events that
have taken place there recently. Last Saturday, I at-
tended, along with the local mayor, the state member
and Kay Cottee, who is a resident in Page, in Yamba,
and was a guest speaker—and she is definitely fa-
mous!—a Lions convention at district 201N1. There
were over 300 people there and over 64 branches rep-
resented. It was just wonderful to have the convention
taking place in Yamba. The theme was to do with the
sun and surf and seafood, but they did some serious
work as well. It was very pleasing to be with local
groups who do such wonderful work locally and qui-
etly but who are connected to a whole international
network. They do great work internationally, particu-
larly in areas to do with eyes—the Eye Bank and help-
ing to restore sight. You may not know this, Mr
Speaker, but the first Lions Club in Australia was actu-
ally formed in Lismore, my home town. That is some-
thing that I am quite proud of and that all the people in
my area are quite proud of too. We get to talk about
that a bit up my way.
I also attended the launch of a Broadband for Sen-
iors Kiosk that is helping connect seniors to the inter-
net. It is part of the $15 million three-year program
being rolled out across Australia. I have quite a few of
these kiosks set up in my area. This one was with
Ballina District Community Services Association.
What was novel about it was that they set it up at their
services association, utilising Southern Cross High
School students. It was called ‘reverse mentoring’. We
know that young people are pretty IT savvy and tech-
nically aware, and they actually thought I was not bad
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
for an older woman, in that I could teach them about
Twitter. I told them the whole history of it, so they
thought that was pretty cool. But it was really a great
project, using the young people and their skills and
putting them with the older people. I was also able to
plant a few things pre-empting Social Inclusion Week,
which will open in November with Ballina District
Community Services Association—a great local com-
munity services association.
I also went to the Ballina High School Marine Dis-
covery and Resource Centre. I would like to pay tribute
to Mick O’Connor and Lynda Hourigan, two teachers
there who have spent years developing it and building
it from scratch. The marine discovery centre is utilised
by students from across the region and all over Austra-
lia. People look at it to link in with them, work with
them. I was there to see the centre get honoured with a
cheque for $50,000 from NAB, the National Australia
Bank, under its philanthropy program, to help the cen-
tre along a bit. It is the only place I have ridden in a
LARC. I helped the centre to acquire some LARCs,
which are amphibious vehicles—they go into the wa-
ter. They come from America and it was a bit compli-
cated getting them, but I have now been for a ride in
the centre’s LARCs, and I would like to pay real tribute
to them.
Another event I attended was the Changing the Tune
project for Lismore youth. I want to thank the Minister
for Justice, Brendan O’Connor, and his department.
The project received a $150,000 grant and will use the
plaza at Goonellabah as a hub. There is a sort of skate
park there. Changing the Tune will provide programs
and activities focused on local Indigenous young peo-
ple. It is to help them feel more connected to their cul-
ture, provide life skills and better prepare them to re-
turn to school, training or employment. It builds on the
Safer Suburbs project and will help that particular pro-
ject.
I also attended Paws in the Park. I commend the lo-
cal vets for this event. They wanted me to take one of
my dogs, but she was in heat so I could not take her. I
would have won the race, because I would have had
every dog behind me! But I borrowed somebody else’s
dog and attended that event. It was a great day out in
the park with all the dogs. There are so many dog lov-
ers in our community. It was a great initiative from the
Keen Street Vet Clinic— (Time expired)
Ryan Electorate: Building the Education
Revolution Program
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (10.19 pm)—I rise in the
chamber tonight to speak on a matter of importance to
the people of Ryan. Last Friday evening I had the
pleasure of attending the opening of the annual Rain-
worth State School art show. This event coincided with
the opening of two new buildings—a library and a
school hall. These buildings are a wonderful resource
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
and have been provided through the BER program.
What is significant is that the building company
worked diligently with the school and its P&C to re-
work and rectify the Labor state government’s plans,
plans that would have removed the cricket nets, much-
needed and in-demand play space and a 100-year-old
tree. Instead, the builders worked with the school
community on a much more difficult site—unable to be
used for other purposes—and, importantly, delivered
what the school community wanted. The local builder
not only completed this more difficult construction
project within budget but also still had funding for fit-
out and extras. The final result was a very happy
school community, a satisfied builder with a job well
done and an example of a BER project that achieved its
purpose.
Moggill State School also fought hard for its own
project manager and, as a result, will soon open a new
hall and library to meet the needs of its community.
However, in today’s Courier-Mail the local state mem-
ber, Dr Bruce Flegg, revealed what is unquestionably
one of the most disastrous outcomes of the BER pro-
gram. At Mount Crosby State School, just up the road
from Moggill State School, the situation is one of stark
contrast. Moggill State School and Mount Crosby State
School have a similar number of enrolments. The
Mount Crosby community has experienced enormous
growth, resulting in 710 students and the state school
being at 100 per cent over capacity. Even the local kin-
dergarten does not have a permanent home. Mount
Crosby State School has no hall. It has no adequate
school library. So you can understand the excitement
when the BER program was announced. However, de-
spite having plans already drawn up, it missed out on
the first two rounds of funding, although schools with
existing facilities, schools due for closure and others
with no needs or plans at the ready were funded.
Unlike Moggill State School, Mount Crosby were
not allowed to manage their own project. And the
builder who had drawn up their original plans was not
even allowed to quote on the project. The Mount
Crosby State School program has been devastated by
unfairness, by inequities and by injustices. I am here
representing the students, the teachers, the parents and
the friends of Mount Crosby State School in the elec-
torate of Ryan. The school has now become embroiled
in a bitter dispute with the state department.
So, despite both schools having a similar number of
students and the same funding, Moggill State School
has been provided with a hall of about 1,480 square
metres while Mount Crosby has been provided with
one of barely 830 square metres. Moggill’s hall is fully
enclosed and suitable for community events. It has
covered verandas and a kitchen and is suitable to oper-
ate outside-school-hours care. Mount Crosby’s hall, on
the other hand, will be partially enclosed with only two
CHAMBER
85
walls. There is no veranda; there is a small room and
the community will not find it appropriate for their
needs. Moggill’s is also equipped with a special sports
floor and has $100,000 worth of audio and lighting
equipment. Mount Crosby will have access to an audio
system.
Their respective libraries are a similar story. At
Moggill State School, the library and resource centre is
over 450 square metres. The library at Mount Crosby
will be a mere 270 square metres in size. As taxpayers,
the people of Mount Crosby have every right to be in-
censed. As the parents of children at a wonderful pri-
mary school who will simply miss out on the infra-
structure that they so desperately need, they have every
right to feel let down by Labor. This program has
treated Mount Crosby with contempt. For this, the Gil-
lard government should stand condemned. To channel
the Prime Minister speaking on another failed Labor
program: ‘It is a mess.’
But no-one in government is listening. As important
as you say stimulus may be, a waste of money remains
a waste of money. I call on the minister to intervene
and to allow Mount Crosby to appoint its own project
manager. I call on the minister to intervene and rescue
this project for the benefit of the whole of the Mount
Crosby community. I call on the minister to intervene
to ensure that Mount Crosby State School receives the
facilities it should for this funding. (Time expired)
Redcliffe Relay for Life
Mrs D’ATH (Petrie) (10.24 pm)—Last Saturday,
Redcliffe held the 2010 Redcliffe Relay for Life. Relay
for Life is a fundraising event held by the Cancer
Council. However, this is not just any event. It is a
unique event where teams of 10 to 15 people challenge
themselves to take turns to keep a baton moving in a
relay style walk or run overnight. The event starts at 3
pm on a Saturday and continues on until 9 am on the
Sunday. Team members are encouraged to raise a
minimum of $100 each. The event kicks off celebrating
the lives of those who have battled cancer, with the
first lap honouring cancer survivors and carers. At
dusk, a candle-lighting ceremony takes place to re-
member those lost or someone living with cancer. At
the closing ceremony you make a pledge to fight
against cancer in your own special way.
For the third year, I entered my team, the Petrie Pos-
sums. In addition, I was honoured this year to be the
patron for the Redcliffe Relay for Life. In addition to
promoting the event in the lead-up to the day, I had the
honour of reading the Relay for Life oath at the open-
ing ceremony. The motto for the Relay for Life is:
‘Celebrate, Remember, Fight Back!’
People are also asked to think about who they are re-
laying for. This year, I and my team relayed for some-
one very dear to our hearts. Last year, I held the Petrie
Essay and Public Speaking Competition. The secon-
86 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
dary school winner was a 15-year-old boy from St
Paul’s School at Bald Hills named Sam Harvey. Sam
came down to Canberra as part of the prize and spent a
day learning about parliament and meeting with mem-
bers and senators, including you, Mr Speaker.
Just after Anzac Day this year I was contacted by a
family member of Sam and advised that Sam had been
diagnosed with sarcoma, a bone cancer. Sam was al-
lowed to remain at home over that long weekend and
then was admitted to hospital to immediately start in-
tensive chemotherapy. Ten weeks ago, Sam underwent
surgery to remove a femur and received a prosthetic
bone in its place. Sam is up and mobile and still under-
going chemotherapy. In fact, last week he underwent
five days of chemotherapy, finishing on Friday after-
noon. On Saturday, Sam arrived at the Relay for Life
with his mum and dad and aunt. Sam walked the first
lap as a survivor with me. Today, Sam went back to
school, determined to complete year 11. Sam is an in-
spiration. His courage and strength was my team’s mo-
tivation to walk the 18 hours during the Relay for Life.
In addition, my office staff and I have someone even
closer to us who is also battling cancer. Judi in my
electorate office is currently fighting bowel cancer.
Judi is a woman who does not like people fussing over
her and is continuing to work after just starting treat-
ment last week. The diagnosis is positive and we know
that Judi’s courage and hope will see her through. It is
for these people and the many young people battling
cancer that we relay.
This year’s Redcliffe Relay for Life was a great suc-
cess despite a change of venue due to flooding of the
fields at the Tigers AFL Club and gale force winds
leading up to the event. I would like to acknowledge
and thank the Queensland Cancer Council and particu-
larly Katie Bottom. I would also like to thank Neville
Cullen, the Redcliffe RSL and the Redcliffe Relay for
Life Volunteer Committee for 2010. A big thankyou
should go to the Redcliffe Kippa-Ring Lions for step-
ping in at the last minute and saving the day by provid-
ing an alternative venue at the Redcliffe showgrounds.
I would like to congratulate all 25 teams that entered
this year. They made the event the success that it was.
I would like to acknowledge the sponsors for the
Petrie Possums team. The gold sponsors, donating
$1,000 or more, were the Redcliffe Leagues Club, the
Redcliffe Kippa-Ring Lions, the AWU and TLC IT
Solutions. Silver sponsors of $500 plus were Helen-
Maree Butler, from Suncorp, Kippa-Ring, and the Qld
Hibernian Friendly Society, BallyCara. The bronze
sponsors of $100 plus were Quota International Red-
cliffe; Councillor Chris Whiting, from the Moreton
Bay Regional Council; Maree Adshead, from Mobile
IP; Rod Chiapello, owner of McDonalds Bracken
Ridge; Tony Crudgington, from Redcliffe Environ-
mental Forum; Dean Wells, the member for Murrumba;
CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
the Belvedere Hotel; WOW Events Management; and
Rotary Sunwise. Many more people from my local
community gave donations and some of my parliamen-
tary colleagues did too.
Thanks to all of the team members and walkers for
the Petrie Possums who came out throughout the night
to walk with us. Our team was the highest fundraiser
and at last count we had raised $7,824.70, which is a
fantastic result. Although my body is still recovering
from the event, it was worth every second, with every
cent raised by the Petrie Possums going to the Cancer
Council to support the research and support services
that the council provide.
Question agreed to.
House adjourned at 10.29 pm
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Albanese to present a bill for an act to amend
legislation relating to telecommunications, and for
other purposes.
Ms Roxon to present a bill for an act to amend the
law relating to health, and for related purposes.
Ms Macklin to present a bill for an act to amend the
law relating to family assistance, social security, veter-
ans’ affairs, Aboriginal land rights and the Indigenous
Land Corporation, and for related purposes.
Mr Garrett to present a bill for an act to amend the
law in relation to higher education, and for related pur-
poses.
Mr Garrett to present a bill for an act to amend the
Higher Education Support Act 2003, and for related
purposes.
Mr Gray to present a bill for an act to amend the
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and for related
purposes. (Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Po-
litical Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2010)
Mr Dutton to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) mental illness afflicts more Australians than almost
all other health disorders, only ranking behind can-
cer and heart disease in prevalence;
(b) forty-five per cent of the nation’s population will
experience a mental health disorder at some point
in life;
(c) younger Australians—those between 16 and 24—
bear the brunt of mental illness, with prevalence of
problems declining with age;
(d) with early and targeted treatment, many people can
overcome mental illness or lower the incidence of
progression or relapse;
(e) expansion of the headspace and Early Psychosis
Prevention Intervention Centres (EPPIC) models
could help an estimated 200 000 young Australians,
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
and in doing so, free-up existing services for others
with mental illnesses whilst alleviating pressures on
public hospitals and emergency departments; and
(f) the Government has moved to cut services in men-
tal healthcare;
(2) requires the Government to:
(a) expand the number of headspace centres to a mini-
mum of 90 nationally;
(b) establish a national network of 20 EPPIC centres;
(c) provide an additional 800 beds for mental health,
associated with the EPPIC centres;
(d) appropriate funds necessary to provide these critical
steps to expanding mental health treatment facili-
ties; and
(e) immediately provide additional funds for existing
headspace centres; and
(3) sends a message to the Senate acquainting it of this reso-
lution and requesting that it concur.
Mr Turnbull to present a bill for an act to require
the preparation and publication of a business case and a
cost benefit analysis of the proposed National Broad-
band Network, and for related purposes.
Mr Turnbull to move:
That:
(1) a Joint Select Committee on Broadband be appointed to
inquire into and report on all aspects of the business of
the NBN Co. including its construction, operations, fi-
nancing and any other matters related thereto;
(2) the committee consist of 10 members, 2 Members of the
House of Representatives to be nominated by the Gov-
ernment Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of
Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition
Whip or Whips and 1 by any non-aligned Member, 2
Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Govern-
ment in the Senate, and 2 Senators to be nominated by
the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator
to be nominated by any minority group or groups or in-
dependent Senator or independent Senators;
(3) every nomination of a member of the committee be noti-
fied in writing to the President of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives:
(4) the members of the committee hold office as a joint
select committee until the House of Representatives is
dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(5) the committee will elect a chair;
(6) the committee elect a member as its deputy chair who
shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the
chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at
any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present
at a meeting of the committee the members present shall
elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.
(7) the Chair and Deputy chair shall not both be from either
the Government, Opposition or Crossbench members;
(8) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the
deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(9) 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the
committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the
CHAMBER
87
quorum shall include 1 Government member of either
House and 1 non-Government member of either House;
(10) the committee have power to appoint subcommittees
consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to
any subcommittee any matter which the committee is
empowered to examine;
(11) the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee
who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when
the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting
of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee
present shall elect another member of that subcommittee
to act as chair at that meeting;
(12) 2 members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of
that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meet-
ing the quorum shall include 1 Government member of
either House and 1 non-Government member of either
House;
(13) members of the committee who are not members of a
subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that
subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be
counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(14) the committee or any subcommittee have power to call
for witnesses to attend and for documents to be pro-
duced;
(15) the committee or any subcommittee may conduct pro-
ceedings at any place it sees fit;
(16) the committee or any subcommittee have power to ad-
journ from time to time and to sit during any adjourn-
ment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(17) the committee may report from time to time;
(18) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are in-
consistent with the standing orders, have effect notwith-
standing anything contained in the standing orders; and
(19) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this
resolution and requesting that it concur and take action
accordingly.
Mr Hartsuyker to present a bill for an act to pro-
vide for the consideration of matters of public health
and safety in the operation of the Environment Protec-
tion and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and for
related purposed.
Ms Rowland to move:
That this House:
(1) notes the:
(a) 19 September 2010 Declaration by the members of
the Broadband Commission for Digital Develop-
ment to world leaders attending the 2010 Millen-
nium Development Goals Summit at the United
Nations on the benefits of broadband as the trans-
formational technology for employment generation,
productivity growth and the long term economic
competitiveness;
(b) OECD report of December 2009 which makes the
case for investment in a competitive, open-access
national fibre network rollout based on benefits to
four key sectors of the economy: electricity, health
transportation and education;
88 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, 19 October 2010

(c) the positive externalities of broadband in providing

increased opportunities to access Australian health
and education services, and the linkages between
disparities in broadband access and social disadvan-
tage; and
(d) the technical limitations of non-fibre approaches to
national broadband development, particularly in re-
spect of video and other ‘real time’ applications
used to deliver health and education services; and
(2) recognises the merits of the development of universal
broadband access in Australia with an emphasis on op-
tions for niche broadband delivered content and applica-
tions to provide immediate benefits to areas and groups
of identifiable need.

CHAMBER
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 89

Tuesday, 19 October 2010

—————
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper) took the chair at 4.38 pm.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Swan Electorate: Roads
Mr IRONS (Swan) (4.39 pm)—I rise to speak about a dangerous intersection in my electorate of Swan which
needs immediate attention. Recently, local resident and small businessman Wayne Frendo contacted me about the
Cohn Street-Harris Street intersection in Carlisle. Living on the corner of the intersection, Mr Frendo had seen
many near misses and crashes and was concerned that it would only be a matter of time before a fatality occurred.
Wayne provided me with photographic evidence of a recent accident where the police, fire and ambulance emer-
gency services were called to the crash scene. The driver only just managed to escape with their life. Mr Frendo
then invited me to inspect the intersection myself and I was immediately struck by seeing the debris from crashes
scattered across the streetscape and across his front yard. The intersection itself is formed by two stop signs on
Harris Street. On closer inspection it was obvious that speed was not the only problem, with tyre marks indicating
that hooning was also prevalent. I think the local hoons call it ‘doughnutting’.
To determine the scale of the problem I distributed a road safety survey and the neighbourhood residents have
been returning them in numbers. I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank Mr Frendo for his help in
distributing those surveys. I found it particularly important to seek feedback from the community given that Main
Roads data has only picked up two serious crashes in the last five years. As such, I asked in my survey for the
residents to document incidents that they themselves have witnessed at the intersection. Most respondents took the
opportunity to do just that. Many told me how baffled they were at the Main Roads official statistics, detailing
comprehensive eyewitness accounts of incidents on almost a daily basis. Main Roads are obviously not picking up
all of the crashes at this intersection, which calls into question the use of the intersection crash ranking report as a
planning tool for prioritising intersection upgrades.
The feedback from residents suggested the main problem is cars not stopping at the designated stop signs on
Harris Street and driving straight over Cohn Street, leading to near misses and plenty of dangerous situations.
There was also a comment made that there were accidents occurring at the times of day when people were driving
directly toward the sun. The majority of people who have responded so far suggested some change to the road
layout as the best way to address this problem. Many have argued that a roundabout would be appropriate in this
situation. I am still receiving responses and collating the results. I have contacted the local council, who are re-
sponsible for road upgrades in the area, and I am pleased that they are willing to meet at the intersection soon. The
CEO has taken interest in the intersection. I look forward to sharing with them the concerns of the local residents
soon—it is actually going to be this Friday at 10 o’clock.
Mr Sidebottom interjecting—
Mr IRONS—Not yet, member for Braddon! Given Carlisle is a mainly residential suburb with plenty of fami-
lies with young children, it is particularly important to have this issue resolved. It is clearly a matter which the
community is gravely concerned about. I will continue to work with the community to find a solution and will
keep the House informed of any progress.
In closing, I would like to congratulate Mr Wayne Frendo for his commitment to making his intersection and
his community safer and to avoiding any deaths at this intersection. Thank you.
International Development Assistance
Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon) (4.42 pm)—Sunday, 17 October 2010 was recognised throughout the world as
the United Nations International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, and it gave me and, I hope, others time to
reflect on our own relatively good fortune and to be generous to those in our region who face extreme levels of
poverty. I met recently with members of the Burnie RESULTS group, which emphasised the high levels of pov-
erty in the Asia-Pacific region. RESULTS volunteers are advocates working throughout the world to create the
political will to eradicate poverty. The Asia-Pacific region, for the record, has 60 per cent of the world’s popula-
tion who live in extreme poverty. It is to no-one’s advantage that this situation be allowed to continue. The Austra-
lian government has a healthy record in its support for poverty eradication programs. Indeed, the Gillard Labor
government is committed to meeting its share of the funding for the Millennium Development Goals.
Australia’s aid budget is structured to support the Millennium Development Goals. The government is support-
ing the goals in a practical sense through a staged increase in overseas aid to 0.5 per cent of gross national income
by 2015, cancellation of a $75 million debt for Indonesia and a $210 million contribution to the Global Fund to
Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. That is up from $145 million in the 2008-10 period. The Global Fund to

MAIN COMMITTEE
90 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, 19 October 2010

Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has prevented an estimated 5.7 million deaths. These increases in funding
go some but not all of the long way to reducing poverty, but every little bit helps.
Improving people’s health will mean fewer families will face a loss of income because fewer breadwinners will
be affected by the diseases of poverty, like AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. I join with many people who care
about what happens to our neighbours to ask all donor countries, including our own, to follow the lead of the most
generous donor nations like Sweden, Norway and Luxembourg and work actively towards achieving the UN rec-
ommended level for overseas aid of 0.7 per cent of gross national income. I know my own government is working
towards achieving this goal in a practical way and has a record to be proud of. It would also agree that it looks
forward to being able to do more. I would like to conclude with a quote from the Lancet of May 2010 in relation
to the global fund:
The (Global) Fund is the great success story of multilateral foreign policy this past decade. What makes it different from
most good causes is the certainty of a return on investment. ... There is no sector of government expenditure that gives a better
human return.
Fadden Electorate: Health Services
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (4.45 pm)—Recently the minister for health wrote to me and asked for my comment
about whether I would be amenable to a GP superclinic in the northern part of the Gold Coast. After consultation
with all of the medical clinics throughout the electorate of Fadden, the feedback I have received, through a 100
per cent response, is that no GP superclinic is warranted for nor required in Fadden. A recent general practice Gold
Coast census of GPs shows there are 473 GPs and 215 nurses in 123 practices across the Gold Coast. The age and
sex distribution of the workforce is remaining relatively constant with clinicians coming on board in sufficient
numbers to replace retiring GPs though DWSs are required to expand. What is not required is another superclinic
which would simply rob Peter to pay Paul. The real problem is the shortage of doctors. This shortage continues to
be exacerbated by the Department of Health and Ageing not allowing district of workforce shortage measures to
be applied in the fastest growing electorate in the nation. GPs have changed work practices to become more effi-
cient, to increase the capacity of general practice and to systematise it for more effective service delivery.
General practices on the Gold Coast are already ‘super’ clinics, and every single one of those general practices
sends a very clear message that they do not want the government interfering and they do not want a superclinic.
The Labor government does not know better than the GP clinics on the Gold Coast. The simple response from
them to the government is to butt out and leave the Gold Coast clinics to do what they do best: provide medical
care. General practice on the Gold Coast has successfully created ‘medical homes’ in their local communities
where patients can access the doctor of their choice in their own area. There is no unmet need in Fadden for the
great big shiny building that will supposedly help from the Labor Party. In the last month alone, three new medi-
cal practices have opened in Fadden and many businesses have extended their opening hours. There are now local
practices providing services until 10 pm at night and all day Saturday and Sunday. The population is also served
by several out-of-hours agencies who provide both home visits and surgery based consultations. Therefore the
question is: what value does the Labor Party GP superclinic bring, apart from a shiny new building for one of their
senators to open? A superclinic is totally and completely unnecessary on the Gold Coast in Fadden. It is not war-
ranted; it is not welcome. Fadden is well serviced by existing general practices. The superclinic model proposed
by the Labor government will destroy the medical homes which already exist and do very little for patient care.
The government obviously think so because they will not allow a greater number of district of workforce shortage
doctors in. Therefore they are already saying by that action that there is already sufficient medical care.
Corio Electorate: Historic Churches
Mr MARLES (Corio—Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs) (4.48 pm)—I have spoken many
times in this place before about the importance of Geelong’s built heritage and what I believe is our city’s ten-
dency to undersell its value and relevance. This is particularly true of our churches. In Geelong we have many fine
churches of enormous historic significance. They are as deeply woven into the historic fabric of our city as St Pe-
ter’s is a part of Rome and the Duomo is a part of Florence. The former St Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Yarra
Street is one of Victoria’s earliest surviving churches. It was built in 1841, just three years after Geelong was sur-
veyed, and remains one of our city’s earliest buildings and a fine example of colonial Georgian architecture. In
Moorabool Street, Christ Church was built in 1843 and is the oldest Anglican church in Victoria still occupying its
original site. St Mary’s Basilica dominates our city’s skyline. It boasts the tallest bluestone spire in the country. By
the time construction of St Mary’s started in 1854, the Catholic community of Geelong had already outgrown two
smaller churches.
Our churches tell us a lot about how Geelong was settled and how it flourished. And these early churches are
some of the few buildings in our city which have survived from the mid-19th century so they should be treasured
by us all as a wonderful historical record of our city. But buildings of this age require commitment and sometimes

MAIN COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 91

the commitment has to extend beyond the congregation that occupies that church. Fewer people are attending
church these days and I think, in many cases, an unfair burden falls on a dwindling few to look after buildings that
should be cherished by our entire community. St George’s Presbyterian Church on La Trobe Street is one local
church with an uncertain future. This church is 150 years old and needs $2 million of repair work. Understanda-
bly, that is a huge cost for a congregation of less than 60 active members. The option of selling is, I know, being
reluctantly considered. Christ Church is another example of a congregation struggling to find the millions of dol-
lars needed to fund repairs to its crumbling stone facade. We know that a magnificent church is all it takes to put a
city on the tourist map. Salisbury Cathedral in England and Chartres Cathedral in France are two examples that
come to mind. The common thread is the way these churches are celebrated as a visible and vital part of the his-
tory of their city and shown off to visitors with enormous pride. We have churches to be proud of in Geelong but it
is time we took collective responsibility for buildings that need work. I have discussed this issue with Father
Kevin Dillon and with his help I am planning to convene a meeting of all local churches to discuss how we can
develop a community response to the conservation issues facing some of these churches. It is time to see it as not
simply their problem, but our problem—our city’s problem—and to think about the ways in which we can assist
in solving that problem.
Indi Electorate: Telecommunications
Mrs MIRABELLA (Indi) (4.51 pm)—I rise to speak about the very important issue in my electorate of severe
telecommunications deficiencies in certain areas. Basic telecommunication coverage is and should be a definite
priority for any communication minister and, obviously, the current one leaves much to be desired.
I want to specifically focus on some towns in my electorate—the towns of Kancoona, Running Creek, Rose-
white, Mudgegonga and Myhree. Residents in these locations have either little or no access to basic mobile phone
coverage and only some coverage from radio and television signals. It should be noted that most of these towns
were directly impacted by the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires.
As you would appreciate, communication is critical during times of crisis not just for those in their homes and
working but also to CFA volunteers. The 2009 bushfire royal commission did make specific recommendations and
reference to communications infrastructure equipment to ensure that vital information can be accessed by resi-
dents in those locations. In fact, it was Senator Conroy who said that mobile communication can be a lifesaver. So
I share the frustration and disappointment of my constituents who, although encouraged by the right words, have
not seen these words matched by action.
At the recent election the coalition put forward a plan that would have addressed these black spots. We commit-
ted $30 million to support the deployment of the telecommunications infrastructure necessary to ensure that com-
munities would have adequate and reliable mobile phone coverage. We promised to work with the industry to tar-
get areas like these towns in my electorate. Our grants would have allowed the progressive rollout of telecommu-
nications infrastructure and ensured adequate and reliable mobile phone coverage across Australia. It is interesting
to see that the government’s NBN—a whopping $43 billion at conservative estimates by some counts—will not
make a jot of difference to any of these towns that I have mentioned.
I wrote to the communications minister a year ago in an attempt to gain government support for crucial infra-
structure. Those pleas were ignored. Minister Conroy cited that investments are based on commercial decisions
and economic viability. Well, if that is the case he should subject the NBN to some economic viability studies. He
should subject it to a cost-benefit analysis. But of course the Labor Party is very hypocritical when it comes to
issues of transparency and economic accountability.
It is just not good enough for country towns in these key areas, which are subject to natural disasters that en-
danger life and property, to be left without adequate communication. It is time the Labor Party matched their
rhetoric with some real action. (Time expired)
Broadband
Ms COLLINS (Franklin—Parliamentary Secretary for Community Services) (4.54 pm)—It is interesting that
we just heard from the previous speaker about telecommunications and the National Broadband Network. What I
want to talk about is Regional Development Australia Tasmania’s economic and community development forum
that was held in southern Tasmania on 6 October. One of the things that they talked about at that forum was the
excellent opportunities for local, state and federal governments to deliver new services, particularly services to
regional and rural Australia.
The forum looked at the NBN in a session and an e-health adviser, Ros Hill, gave an excellent presentation
about how the NBN will change the nature of health care for those who live in rural and regional communities. In
August of this year, at the launch of the National Broadband Network with the Prime Minister, I witnessed the
new technology. We had an opportunity to talk to a wonderful woman, Peggy, who is using the National Broad-

MAIN COMMITTEE
92 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, 19 October 2010

band Network to help her manage her health complaints. The quote from Peggy was that it was like having a
friend in her own home. She felt secure and safe with the e-health facility in her home where she could talk to
practitioners about some of her health concerns, and they could monitor her in her own home, so she did not have
to travel to appointments. It was remarkable to see it working.
Ros Hill’s presentation to Regional Development Australia Tasmania also covered the importance of the NBN
in relation to establishing patient controlled records. Of course, it is the Labor government that has committed
money to patient controlled electronic health records, and it is the opposition that proposed to cut that funding and
to cut the move to electronic health records as part of their election commitments and savings.
The NBN is about more than just faster downloads; it is about a transformation of services in regional and rural
Australia as well as the metro cities. It will mean that people in rural and regional Australia will have access,
sometimes for the first time, to specialists and services that they would not otherwise have access to. It is going to
be one of the greatest improvements to service delivery in those areas that we have seen for generations.
If you come to Tasmania you can see some of this technology live, and it is really exciting to see it. We are talk-
ing about interfaces and equipment that are getting smaller and smaller and more user friendly for the end user,
who often are patients in the case of e-health, and obviously in services such as education, e-commerce and agri-
business. They can now all be conducted with improved technology such as the National Broadband Network.
In my own electorate people are really looking forward to the rollout of the National Broadband Network.
Whilst for them it is still a year or so off, they are very excited. My office is getting many calls not just about the
faster downloads but about the innovation and the technologies that will be received. (Time expired)
Bradfield Electorate: Coeliac Society
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (4.57 pm)—I rise to speak about a matter raised with me by the Coeliac Society,
which is an organisation based in my electorate of Bradfield. I had the opportunity to meet recently with Mr Gra-
ham Price, the Technical Officer of the Coeliac Society. He explained to me that coeliac disease is an autoimmune
disease and the only treatment for it is to have a gluten-free diet. This raises the question of what is gluten free.
The Food Standards Code says that gluten free means ‘no detectable gluten’. But the position is a little more
complicated than that. Historically that has been regarded as meaning 20 parts per million of gluten in any piece
of food. Indeed, food that meets the 20 parts per million standard, I am advised, is labelled as gluten free in
Europe and in the United States. The complexity is this. The testing standards have improved in recent years and it
is now possible to detect gluten down to a level as low as five parts per million. This has led to the problem that
food, which is in all practical senses gluten free and does not trigger the adverse response from sufferers of coeliac
disease, nevertheless, is now being found to be carrying gluten because it has gluten at levels of, for example,
eight parts per million.
Let me quote from a letter written by the Coeliac Society:
The Coeliac Society is concerned that the term ‘gluten free’ may disappear altogether and we will be the only country not able
to supply gluten-free foods.
I have raised the issue with the ACCC, which has an interest in this because of the very strong position it takes in
relation to the use of the word ‘free’. It seems that there is something of a bureaucratic stand-off because Food
Standards Australia New Zealand and the ACCC seem to be pointing fingers at each other to some extent as to
who polices the use of the word ‘free’.
I have written to the Minister for Health and Ageing, Ms Roxon, about this issue and I would argue that we
ought to seek a sensible resolution so that the food-labelling laws serve rather than frustrate the interests of suffer-
ers of coeliac disease. In practical terms it ought to be possible to label food as gluten free if it has a sufficiently
low level of gluten that it does not cause adverse health effects, even though, because of the latest testing stan-
dards, it may have minute levels of gluten present within it. I do hope we can get a sensible response and I com-
mend the work of the Coeliac Society in speaking up for sufferers of this disease.
Fraser Electorate: Ride to Work Day
Mr LEIGH (Fraser) (5.00 pm)—I rise today to speak about a terrific community event called Ride to Work Day.
On 13 October this year I had the opportunity to participate in Ride to Work Day, an event organised by Pedal
Power in my local electorate. Honourable members may remember that that morning was particularly rainy, but I
was fortunate to be joined at my local shops in Hackett by not one, not two, not three and not four, but five mem-
bers of Pedal Power: John Widdup, Paul Truebridge, Tony Shields, Brendan Nerdal and Joy Clay. They were not
only terrific company but took great advantage of the opportunity of cycling with me from my home to my work
to lobby me, one by one—cycling alongside me and raising with me particular issues of concern they had about
cycle paths in different parts of Canberra. It was a really enjoyable morning, I think, for all of us.

MAIN COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 93

Pedal Power is one of those great local organisations we have in Canberra, with a membership of about 3½
thousand people. The organisation was founded with the support of Jim Fraser, after whom my electorate is
named. It may interest members in this place to know that the organisation was founded on 11 November 1975, a
date which we sometimes remember for other reasons.
Cycling is good for people’s health and it is important for the environment. Moving more people to a low-
carbon transport approach is going to be one of the ways in which we tackle climate change along, of course, with
the use of market based mechanisms. The government and the federal government are strongly committed to a
transport plan which will increase the number of Canberrans cycling to work. I was delighted recently to open,
with John Hargreaves MLA, a cycle path alongside Ginninderra Drive which will increase the opportunities for
people in that area to cycle to work.
Cycling is also terrific fun. When I was an economics professor at ANU, I used to cycle into work whenever I
could and I found that half-hour was sometimes the best thinking time I got in the day. It was also a time I got to
bond with my one-year-old son, when I occasionally put him on the back of the bike.
Finally I want to congratulate Paul and Di Truebridge of Pedal Power for a program they run called New Hori-
zons cycling development. This program won a national award last year and it is a program that is important in
increasing the number of people who cycle to work. It is a program aimed at people who can ride a bike, but not
very far or not with confidence, and who want to improve their riding knowledge and techniques so they can
commute, go touring or just have fun on the bicycle. It is terrific to see Paul and Di Truebridge encouraging more
people to get on two wheels than ever before.
Macquarie Electorate: Lachlan Macquarie
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (5.03 pm)—I rise today to honour the 200th anniversary of Lachlan Macquarie’s
tenure as Governor of New South Wales. Before I begin I would like to briefly highlight the Macquarie Youth
Leadership Forum, an initiative to invest in the next generation of leaders in our community. This year I named it
in honour of Lachlan Macquarie. It is my hope that the 80 students expected to attend have been inspired by his
example.
Lachlan Macquarie commenced his governorship on 1 January 1810. There are ten Macquarie towns in New
South Wales and four of those—Windsor, Pitt Town, Richmond and Wilberforce—are in my electorate. Castler-
eagh is also nearby. In the Macquarie electorate we feel that we are very much at the heart of Lachlan and Eliza-
beth’s story. We have been celebrating this momentous occasion throughout the year. The celebrations focus on
Macquarie’s vision and his influence on agriculture, art and the life of the colony.
We commenced the celebrations in 2009 with the launch of the Macquarie Rose. The roses are planted in the
grounds of the Deerubbin Centre and are flourishing. Recently we marked the occasion with a luncheon hosted by
the Hawkesbury Race Club and on Sunday, 10 October we met at the Governor Lachlan Macquarie statue in
McQuade Park, Windsor, to launch the Elizabeth Macquarie Iris. Although I cannot thank everyone, I would like
to very briefly acknowledge all the staff at the Hawkesbury City Council and also the council’s Macquarie 2010
bicentenary committee; Marie Sullivan and the Macquarie 2010 committee; and the Governor of New South
Wales, Marie Bashir. Without their contributions this bicentenary would have passed us by unacknowledged. They
have done a great service to the community by keeping the legacy of Macquarie alive.
On Friday Pitt Town will come alive with the Freedom of Entry to the City Parade set to take place. This highly
anticipated event on the Hawkesbury calendar will celebrate both Governor Macquarie’s bicentenary as well as
the 85th anniversary of the Richmond RAAF base. The first RAAF aircraft DH9 biplane landed at the RAAF base
on 30 June 1925 and the RAAF has since become a pillar of our community. The Freedom of Entry to the City
Parade will take place thanks to the hard work of the Pitt Town Progress Association, the Pitt Town Public School
and many local churches and businesses. The last Freedom of Entry to the City was held in 1990, marking this as
the 20th anniversary of the exercise. The RAAF band and 200 RAAF personnel will march through Pitt Town as a
colourful and poignant reminder of the traditional heritage of our local area. It will be a profound tribute not only
to our local RAAF community but also to the legacy of Lachlan Macquarie and his wife Elizabeth.
Robertson Electorate: Davistown Putt Putt Regatta
Ms O’NEILL (Robertson) (5.06 pm)—I have already spoken in the House about the unique beauty and joys of
life on the New South Wales Central Coast. In my first speech to the House I mentioned that I was a chronic opti-
mist. It helps me maintain my optimism that I wake up and look out every day over the magnificent Brisbane Wa-
ter. It is something I recommend to every member of this chamber. The Central Coast is only a four-hour drive
from Parliament House. Rather than flying home on a Thursday afternoon, I suggest members consider splitting
their sitting fortnight and meeting their nearest and dearest at Davistown. A weekend of relaxation in Central
Coast style is sure to await you.

MAIN COMMITTEE
94 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, 19 October 2010

This Sunday would be a good time to take up that offer, as a team of dedicated local volunteers will be holding
the annual Davistown Putt Putt Regatta and Wooden Boat Festival.
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
Ms O’NEILL—You could probably go past that too and enjoy the scenic view. The regatta is in its 13th year. It
is a tradition on the Brisbane Water that goes back to the turn of the last century and it was revived a few years
back by local putt putt enthusiasts. For the information of this chamber, a putt putt boat ranges in length from 14
to 18 feet. It is powered by a single or twin cylinder inboard petrol engine from two to 10 horsepower, which
gives that distinctive putt putt sound.
This year a fleet of 75 heritage putt putt boats and onlookers and supporters will be plying the Brisbane Water.
Anyone who lives on the Central Coast knows that this is a great family day out. Members may be familiar with
that famous quote from the Wind in the Willows:
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats.
That pretty much sums up the Davistown putt putt regatta and life on the Brisbane Water in general. The flotilla
will be led by a boat from Anderson’s Boatshed, the last commercial boatshed on the Brisbane Water.
The organisers tell me that one of the aims of the regatta and festival is to foster an appreciation for the putt
putts amongst an upcoming generation of boatbuilders. It is great that some golden gurus in the boatbuilding in-
dustry on the Central Coast are working to ensure their skills are passed on. I know that in the past one ‘putter’, as
they are known, was drawn from a woodwork class from a local school.
The event that I mentioned is organised entirely by volunteers. I would like to pay a special tribute to this year’s
coordinator, Darren Isaacs, and his co-coordinator, John Hancock. I met John at the Ferryman cafe during the
election campaign. John is an absolute gentleman. The major sponsors for the event are Central Coast Motor
Group, Bendigo Bank and Davistown RSL. Messing about in boats is a great part of the Central Coast way of life.
I wish all the participants in the Davistown Putt Putt Regatta and Wooden Boat Festival all the best for this Sun-
day’s event and I hope that I can join them with my family. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Sidebottom)—In accordance with standing order 193, the time for mem-
bers’ constituency statements has concluded.
PROTECTION OF THE SEA LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2010
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 30 September, on motion by Mr Albanese:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (5.10 pm)—I rise to speak in relation to the Protection of the Sea Legislation
Amendment Bill 2010. I indicate from the outset that the opposition supports the bill. This bill amends the Protec-
tion of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 to give domestic effect to recent amendments to
annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, or MARPOL, that were
adopted by the International Maritime Organisation on 10 October 2008.
The bill also amends the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) Act 2008 to
provide protection for persons taking reasonable measures to prevent or minimise the effects of bunker oil pollu-
tion in Australia or the exclusive economic zone of Australia, in line with the resolution of the diplomatic confer-
ence of the International Maritime Organisations that adopted the International Convention on Civil Liability for
Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, the bunkers convention, in March 2001. This legislation was introduced into the
House of Representatives on 3 February 2010, it was agreed to by the House on 18 March 2010 and it was intro-
duced into the Senate on 11 May 2010 but not debated.
The coalition accepts that, as an island trading nation, Australia has an enormous shipping task. It is therefore
proper that Australia accepts its responsibility to reduce maritime pollution wherever possible. Australia has been
a member of the IMO since its establishment in 1948 and has played an active role in the development of conven-
tions and treaties over many years. The six annexes of the MARPOL deal with different aspects of marine pollu-
tion and all six have been implemented by both Labor and coalition governments over a period of time. These six
annexes cover various aspects of marine pollution—namely, oil, noxious liquid substances, harmful substances in
packaged form, sewage, garbage from ships and air pollution.
Under the previous coalition government Australia adopted all six, with the initial version of annex VI entering
into force in Australia in November 2007 via the Maritime Legislation Amendment (Prevention of Air Pollution
from Ships) Bill 2006. At that time the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional
Services pointed out:

MAIN COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 95

This bill continues the government’s efforts to prevent pollution by ships and maintains the close alignment Australia has
with the International Maritime Organisation’s international conventions.
Annex 6 is intended to reduce air pollution from ships to prevent the adverse public health costs associated with it,
and I commend the government for continuing the good work of the previous coalition government.
In October 2008 the IMO agreed to revise even further the limits on maritime air pollution described in annex
6. These revisions will reduce sulphur emissions from 4.5 per cent to 3.5 per cent from 1 January 2012. Subject to
a review to be conducted by the IMO and to be completed no later than 2018, the cap may be reduced further. The
limits on sulphur emissions applying to parts of seas close to heavily populated areas will be reduced from 1.5 per
cent to one per cent from 1 July 2010 and then further reduced to 0.1 per cent from 1 January 2015. These areas,
known as emission control areas, apply to the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and parts of the US and Canadian coast.
There will be a progressive reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions from ship engines constructed after 1 January
2016 operating in emission control areas. There is also the possibility of imposing further reductions in such areas
as well, subject to IMO approval, on the grounds of health.
I note that, because of the progressive nature of the reduction in pollution, the bill provides for the establish-
ment of regulations to set the maximum allowable sulphur content. These revisions to annex 6 entered into force
internationally on 1 July 2010. These amendments must be implemented in Australian law; otherwise Australia
will be in breach of its obligations and be unable to require registered Australian ships to meet the revised targets.
The coalition therefore supports this element of the bill.
The second element of this bill relates to the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution
Damage) Act 2008, known as the bunkers act. The bunkers act gives domestic effect to Australia’s obligations as a
party to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001. This convention
was adopted by the IMO on 23 March 2001 and entered into force internationally on 21 November 2008. The
convention entered into force in Australia on 16 June 2009. The bunkers act establishes a liability and compensa-
tion regime where shipowners are liable for pollution damage resulting from a spill of fuel oil from their ships.
Liability is based on the size of the ship, with ships of more than 1,000 gross tonnes required to take out insurance
to cover liability up to the limits set out in the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims.
This bill amends the bunkers act and addresses a particular industry concern that relates to the possible liability
of persons or organisations assisting in the clean-up of an oil spill who inadvertently make the pollution damage
worse in doing so. For example, the compensation for clean-up costs following the spill of fuel oil from Pacific
Adventurer off the south-east coast of Queensland in March 2009 exceeded $30 million. This bill addresses con-
cerns that some may be deterred from helping to clean up such a spill out of fear that they could become liable if
their actions carried out in good faith make the pollution worse. Schedule 2 of the bill deals with this by creating a
responder immunity. Organisations or persons assisting in the clean-up of a spill will not be held liable for damage
caused if they acted reasonably and in good faith. A shipowner will continue to be generally liable for pollution
damage resulting from a spill of fuel oil. Under proposed new section 24A responder immunity will not affect that
liability. Immunity from an action suit or proceeding will not apply in relation to actions or omissions that were
intended to cause damage or that were undertaken recklessly when it was known that damage would probably re-
sult.
Australia likes to think of itself as a good international citizen and it is important that, given almost all of our
international trade is carried by sea, we meet our particular responsibility in dealing with marine pollution. The
previous coalition government did its fair share in this area, particularly in its adoption of all six elements of the
MARPOL Convention. The coalition supports the government in building upon the coalition’s efforts. We also
accept from a practical point of view that sulphur levels in fuel in Australia currently fall below the 3.5 per cent
cap. So vessels operating in Australia will have no trouble complying with these new standards. The coalition is
happy to support the passage of this legislation.
In conclusion, I wish to make a few comments regarding the government’s handling of the Pacific Adventurer
oil spill. On 11 March 2009, the Hong Kong-China registered general cargo ship, Pacific Adventurer, lost 31 con-
tainers of ammonium nitrate overboard, some seven nautical miles east of Cape Moreton while en route to Bris-
bane. The ship then reported that its fuel service tank was breached. Subsequently, it was established that 270 ton-
nes of oil was lost. The clean-up operations continued for two months and, as I indicated previously, cost in the
vicinity of $30 million. Under its obligations under the 1996 IMO Convention on Limitation of Liability for Mari-
time Claims, to which Australia is a party, the owners of the Pacific Adventurer were liable to pay $17.5 million.
However, on 7 August 2009 the owner of the Pacific Adventurer, Swire Shipping, agreed to pay a total of $25 mil-
lion for compensation of valid claims arising from the oil spill. But in a decision to bail out the cash-strapped state
Labor government of Queensland, the federal Labor government decided that the decision by the owners of the
Pacific Adventurer to go beyond its obligations in meeting its liabilities and responsibilities was not enough. In-

MAIN COMMITTEE
96 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, 19 October 2010

stead, the federal Labor government decided that, from 1 April 2010, it would increase the tax on Australia’s in-
ternational shipping industry by increasing the protection of the sea levy by 3c per net registered tonne in order to
recover the clean-up costs of the oil spill.
The increase of 3c brings the total levy to 14.25c per net registered tonne. In other words, the entire sector has
to pay an increase in costs, even though the party responsible in this situation more than met its liability obliga-
tions through a convention to which Australia is a signatory. If the government was not happy with the limits pro-
vided under the convention then it should have approached the IMO to increase them. The imposition of an extra
levy on the whole industry because of a serious accident goes well beyond the principle of the potential polluter
pays. I would be interested to know how much money the government expects this increased levy will raise and
over what period of time. I would also be interested to know when the government will honour its commitment in
its press release of 9 February 2010 that this increase will be temporary. When will the government rescind this
increase? Aside from these matters, the coalition supports the passage of the Protection of the Sea Legislation
Amendment Bill 2010.
Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (5.19 pm)—The purpose of the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 is
to implement revised measures to reduce air pollution by ships in accordance with changes agreed to by the Inter-
national Maritime Organisation in October 2008 and to ensure that persons and organisations who provide assis-
tance following a spill of fuel oil from a ship are not themselves likely to be exposed to liability for showing assis-
tance. The bill amends the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983—the prevention of
pollution from ships act—to give domestic effect to recent amendments to annex VI of the International Conven-
tion for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the protocol of 1978 relating to MARPOL.
The bill also amends the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) Act 2008—the
bunker oil act—to provide protection for persons or organisations who act reasonably and in good faith when as-
sisting in a clean-up following a spill of oil from a ship. This comes about because somebody who has become
involved has unintentionally caused a little bit more oil to spill when they endeavoured to do things in good faith.
So we need to tidy that up.
This bill implements the operational requirements of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollu-
tion from Ships, or MARPOL. MARPOL is the main international convention covering prevention of pollution of
the maritime environment by ships. It has six parts which cover oil, bulk noxious liquids, harmful substances car-
ried by sea in package form, sewage from ships, garbage from ships and air pollution by ships. I think this last one
comes into the area of ships engines and the need to make sure that their emissions are at a standard of modern
acceptability, as we do with car engines. I think this is tidying that up and bringing it to a better, higher standard.
The air pollution part was adopted by the Maritime Environment Protection Committee of the International
Maritime Organisation on 10 October 2008, but it needs some revision. It was intended to limit emissions of
ozone-depleting substances such as sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides from the exhausts of ships. So part of this
bill was implemented during this revision. The Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution
Damage) Act has established a liability and compensation regime to apply in cases of pollution damage resulting
from a spill of fuel oil from ships other than oil tankers in respect of which there is a separate liability and com-
pensation regime. There is concern that persons or organisations providing assistance following a spill of fuel oil
may become liable to pay compensation if their actions inadvertently lead to an increase in pollution damage. The
amendments in schedule 2 of this bill add a ‘responder immunity’ provision to the bunkers act to protect such per-
sons who act reasonably and in good faith.
I believe this bill to be mainly an explanatory one that helps make clear some of the provisions but also clarifies
some definitions such as the meaning of fuel oil. Fuel oil is being defined as any fuel being delivered to and in-
tended for combustion purposes for propulsion or operation on board a ship, including distillate and residual fuels.
Gas fuel is another one that requires definition because of the new definition of fuel oil. In the revision, annex VI
covers gases which are used as fuel on ships. There are different requirements applying to fuels that are gases and
others which are not gases. So there are some of the changes in this bill. The way we drive ships may be changing
into the future.
Although this is not a controversial bill—and I just heard the opposition speaker, the member for Gippsland,
say that the opposition will be supporting the bill—it does cover some very important areas if we are to attempt to
control world emissions from ships. Our ships and the ships of other nations are on the high seas for many months
of each year. Obviously, many possible polluting incidents occur and we need to try and ensure these are mini-
mised. There are provisions to allow ships that visit more than one country at a time and have different findings of
fuel oil to come within the standards. They can notify that country, particularly if they are coming into Australia,
that they have taken all reasonable steps to obtain fuel oil with a sulphur content no more than the prescribed limit
but cannot find a source of supply from the last destination.

MAIN COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 97

Australia has a responsibility for its own environment, but it also has the opportunity to encourage and promote
responsibility for the environment at sea. Most people who have never been in a boat see these telltale colours in
the water as oil or other pollutants following the wake of some visiting ships. The practice of dumping bilge water
at sea can mean not only fuel gets expelled but also microscopic small animals that can float to our coastal zones
and become established as a pest in our waters. We must be vigilant to try and stop the invasion of foreign species
such as seastars. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be well aware of those in Tasmania where they have played
havoc in some of our areas, including in the Derwent. Seastars make the bottom of the seabed totally barren. They
eat the seagrasses and the seaweeds and anything else of a size that they can devour. I have seen over the years
where divers have gone down to collect thousands in bags to try to eliminate some of them from the Derwent
River. We have also had invasive species of seaweeds, especially on the east coast in Great Oyster Bay in the elec-
torate of Lyons, from ships coming into the Triabunna port from bilge water. It has set up a different species of
seaweed, a small red species, which clings to the shore and sometimes gets onto the beaches. These things need to
be eliminated and I think with modern practice and processes they can be.
This bill gives the power to fine these people who do not do the right thing, and there is also a power to check
record books for these vessels that carry ozone-depleting substances. There are penalties for owners or masters of
a ship for the failure to carry and keep an ozone-depleting substances record book.
Under the bunkers act, a new section provides that no civil action, suit or proceeding lies against a person who
has acted reasonably and in good faith in trying to prevent or minimise pollution damage in Australia or in Austra-
lia’s exclusive economic zone. However, a shipowner will continue to be generally liable for pollution damage
resulting from a spill of fuel oil and the proposed new section 24A will not affect that liability. As I understand it,
we want our shipowners and masters to be responsible for their ships admissions; however, there are times when,
through no fault of their own, omissions occur and there are some provisions to assist them to sort that out. Going
to sea and dealing with all the complexities of weather and large ships is not an easy task. There are often things
which are not easy to control.
I also remember, when dealing with ships that pollute and are not safe—the ships of shame—in my early days
in this parliament, learning a considerable amount from Peter Morris, who was a very active member of the House
of Representatives, and his brother Alan. They were two very fine parliamentarians. Peter was chairman of the
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, which handed down a report titled Ships of Shame.
This report highlighted the unsafeness of some ships around the world. It went worldwide—conferences were held
all over the world to try to bring change to the way that ships were put to sea. Many ships that were registered in
obscure countries of very little plate, unsafe and unseaworthy, put many seafarers to the bottom of the ocean be-
cause there were no standards that could be applied. It was a very good report that highlighted that these ships not
only put seafarers’ lives at risk but also, I am sure, polluted the seas and oceans of the world not only because of
their leakages and bad practices but because they were bad ships. I remember the Australian Maritime Safety Au-
thority playing a role in stopping some of these ships that came into Australian ports from going back to sea until
they were safe to do so. The Maritime Union of Australia certainly played a role as well.
It is important to get these things right. There is another bill in the parliament dealing with offshore petroleum
safety regimes. The Montara commission of inquiry into the problems of pollution at sea recently handed down its
report. The oil pollution in the Gulf of Mexico led to issues for the wetlands of America. There was a social cost
to people through loss of jobs, which in turn led to despair. The economic losses to fishing and tourism were
enormous. That is a slightly different matter, but it is a difficult issue that needs to be dealt with.
The big picture is to regulate against damage to the sea or the air. We need to sheet home the responsibility for
damage as a result of neglect or thoughtlessness. It is important to have a penalty regime. The minister seems to
have that right in this bill and is certainly going to take care of that for our nation. Australia can help to lead the
world in this important area. We are making sure that we limit emissions in our waters and those that do occur can
be noted and dealt with in the most appropriate way. This is a very good bill to have in the parliament, and I am
glad the opposition is supporting it. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (5.34 pm)—I thank the member for
Lyons for his contribution. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, those of you who represent the ‘southern island’
understand the importance of shipping, as we do as a nation. The Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment
Bill 2010 will make an important contribution to protecting the environment from the activities associated with
shipping, particularly reducing air pollution by ships.
Australia is almost entirely dependent on ships for its exports and imports, with less than one per cent carried
by aircraft. In addition, taking into account total tonnage and the distance travelled, 25 per cent of Australian do-
mestic cargo is carried by ships. This government believes that the effect on the environment from all forms of

MAIN COMMITTEE
98 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, 19 October 2010

transport should be reduced where practicable. In the case of shipping, this is best achieved by ensuring that Aus-
tralian ships and foreign ships which visit Australian ports comply with internationally agreed standards.
This bill implements standards developed by the International Maritime Organisation to reduce the amount of
sulphur oxide in ships’ exhaust gases. Sulphur oxides in the atmosphere contribute to the development of acid
rain. The reduction in sulphur oxides will contribute to a reduction in air pollution with a consequential positive
impact on human health and the environment. The bill will also ensure that any persons who assist with the clean-
up of a spill of fuel oil will not themselves inadvertently become liable for pollution damage, so long as such per-
sons have acted in good faith.
The passage of this bill will complement the high safety standards applied to ships trading on the Australian
coast and entering Australian ports. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
INTERNATIONAL TAX AGREEMENTS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 2010
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 29 September, on motion by Mr Shorten:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr ANTHONY SMITH (Casey) (5.37 pm)—On behalf of the coalition, I make a short contribution to this de-
bate on the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2010.The bill before us has the support of the
coalition. It was introduced in the first sitting week and when passed it will, as the minister pointed out at the time,
give force of law to the second protocol to the tax treaty with Singapore. As the minister said, it will upgrade the
exchange of information provisions in that treaty to internationally agreed tax standards. Tax treaties with key
countries are something that the coalition when in government pursued vigorously, and this tax treaty follows in
those footsteps. It will have great benefit and, as I said, it is something that the coalition supports.
The treaty with Singapore and this legislation have been subject to considerable public scrutiny. As with all
bills that deal with treaties, this bill has been before the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which has recom-
mended that it be passed. This bill effectively upgrades the treaty. In particular, it will amend the International Tax
Agreements Act 1953 to enact into Australian law the second protocol amending the agreement between Australia
and Singapore on the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to income tax
law.
The second protocol to give effect to this agreement was signed on 8 September 2009. It was negotiated in the
context of improving the tax transparency and exchange of information between countries. As I have said, the coa-
lition supports this bill, as we have done with other tax treaties, which is important to ensure that not only is there
very effective tax law but also evasion can be dealt with more effectively by these tax treaties. So we welcome
this International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2010. It has our support.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (5.41 pm)—I speak in support of the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill
(No. 2) 2010. Singapore is an important hub in South-East Asia. It has a dynamic economy and there is a very
large manufacturing sector there. It has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. It is very highly con-
centrated. Singapore is a small place, as anyone who has been there knows, but it is very much dependent on eco-
nomic liberalism and its commitment to free trade and free markets is exemplary. Singapore is a very strong
communitarian society. It is very outward looking and it trades very extensively with its neighbours. In terms of
defence it is an important ally of Australia. It gives significant cooperation through APEC and the ASEAN Re-
gional Forum. There are very strong links in terms of discussions on arms control and disarmament. We are very
close partners with them in regional cooperation and defence training, and at RAAF Base Amberley, Ipswich, Sin-
gaporean military have trained and participated in defence activities for many years.
Singapore is Australia’s largest trade and investment partner in ASEAN and our sixth largest trading partner
overall. We are as important to Singapore as they are to us. In terms of Singapore’s principal export destinations in
2009, we ranked No. 8; in terms of Singapore’s principal import sources in 2009, we ranked No. 17. Singapore is
a very important country to us in terms of not just tourism but also defence, migration and other matters.
This legislation is particularly important with respect to tax evasion, which is a curse throughout the world. The
integrity of our tax system locally is very important not just to our citizenry but also to the federal government
budget and the delivery of services such as health, hospitals, education and the like. The OECD estimates that
about US$5 trillion to US$7 trillion is held in tax havens and bank secrecy jurisdictions throughout the world. We

MAIN COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 99

are rigorous in terms of these issues but, as tough as we can be, shrewd and cunning people and companies will
take every step to evade tax. A whole industry has developed in this area, not just nationally but internationally.
This legislation commits us to being a global leader on the implementation of international standards of tax
transparency, making sure that the exchange of information we have with Singapore is at the leading edge. It
makes sure that there are very few impediments indeed to the wide exchange of information to make sure that,
with respect to taxation, double dipping does not occur and that abusive tax arrangements are not entered into.
This is very important to facilitate the prevention of tax evasion and the exchange of information between taxa-
tion and government authorities is crucial. Nothing can be done without the gathering of evidence and the tracing
of accounts when money goes in and out of one country or another. Australia may be geographically an island, but
we are not with respect to the flow of information and finance.
There is a long history to this matter and we are giving effect to what is known as the second Singapore proto-
col. It was signed back on 8 September 2009 and it amends the existing treaty we undertook with Singapore. Way
back in 1969 the governments of Australia and Singapore entered into an agreement to avoid double taxation and
the history of cooperation between the Australian and Singaporean tax systems has its genesis in those days.
The first Singapore protocol was signed in 1989. This bill will amend that protocol. It would have been previ-
ously carried out through legislation, but it lapsed with the proroguing of parliament when the election was called.
This is not a contentious, difficult or partisan piece of legislation, but it is an efficient one that is necessary to pro-
tect the viability and sustainability of our tax system. It will go some way towards containing the abuse of tax ha-
vens. It means that the Australian Taxation Office can cooperate with the tax authorities in Singapore to make sure
that we play our role in South-East Asia in ensuring compliance with the tax laws of both countries. This is good
for business, trade and commerce between the two countries and it is good for our respective communities. I
commend the legislation to the House.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation)
(5.46 pm)—in reply—I thank those members who took part in the debate on the International Tax Agreements
Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2010. The government is committed to combating cross-border tax evasion. This bill will
give the force of law to the second protocol of the Australian-Singapore tax treaty, which will upgrade the ex-
change of information provisions in that treaty to the internationally agreed tax standard. The enhanced exchange
of information provisions in the second protocol to the Singapore tax treaty will allow tax authorities in both
countries to exchange information on a wider range of taxes in a wider range of circumstances. This will discour-
age taxpayers from participating in abusive tax arrangements by increasing the probability of detection, making it
harder for taxpayers to evade Australian tax. I commend the bill to the House.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
NATIONAL SECURITY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2010
Cognate bill:
PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON LAW ENFORCEMENT BILL 2010
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 30 September, on motion by Mr McClelland:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (5.48 pm)—Clearly the preceding bill, the International Tax Agreements Amendment
Bill (No. 2) 2010, was not particularly controversial because it really was dispatched incredibly quickly.
Mr Ripoll—It is called efficient government.
Mr KEENAN—It is about the only thing that is efficient about this government, but I digress. I rise to talk on
the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 and theParliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforce-
ment Bill 2010. As we debate these bills today, in numerous places around the world members of Australia’s
armed forces, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service are under-
taking tasks that advance our national security. They all perform hard but necessary jobs. Equally important to
Australia’s national security are our antiterrorist intelligence operations.
In the post 9-11 world Australia has expanded its counterterrorism capacity through our state and federal police
agencies, ASIO and ASIS. The fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on Australian soil testifies to their suc-
cess, and in this vital area it is integral that the Gillard government continues to build on the good work of the
former coalition government. We understand that keeping the Australian people safe is the most basic duty of the
federal government.

MAIN COMMITTEE
100 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, 19 October 2010

One important facet of Australia’s national security where Labor has failed dismally is border security. Since
August 2008, when the government dismantled our effective border protection system, there have been 174 illegal
boat arrivals carrying over 8,200 people. This year alone there have been 106 illegal boat arrivals, carrying over
5,200 people. The Prime Minister’s failed immigration and border protection policies are now bringing illegal
boats to Australia in record numbers; however, unlike the coalition, the Prime Minister is unwilling to take the
necessary action to fix the chaos those policies have created.
Instead, Labor are opening two more detention centres, as Christmas Island overflows and onshore detention
centres swell under the weight of Labor’s inept immigration and border protection policies. With one of the two
new detention centres being located in the Western Australian town of Northam, it begs the question as to why
Western Australia has to foot the bill for Labor’s failed border protection policies. The Northam Shire president,
Steve Pollard, said Northam had mixed feelings about hosting a detention centre. He said:
There was a Facebook website page set up about three or four months ago with about 500 people posting their thoughts on it
and 95 per cent of those were fairly much against the detention centre …
It would also appear that the Prime Minister did not bother to consult with the South Australian Premier, Mike
Rann, until an hour before Labor announced their decision to use the South Australian town of Inverbrackie as a
location for a new detention facility. As reported by the ABC, Mr Rann was disappointed the state government
was not consulted and he wants to know how the influx might affect state services. For a government obsessed
with talkfests, they are showing an unprecedented level of arrogance by using regional Australia as a dumping
ground for the surge of illegal arrivals.
Labor’s failed border protection policies have cost taxpayers in excess of $1.1 billion over four years, according
to figures released in the 2010-11 budget. That is about $500 for every Australian man, woman and child. The
government is chasing its tail with these costs. It is doing nothing to stop these costs from increasing. Its answer is
just to keep shovelling money to pay for the blow-outs in our borders, which have now blown out in the budget.
Blow-outs of $1.1 billion are just the beginning of all this. The figure will go higher and higher as long as this
government is running our borders. People smuggling is an insidious trade that takes advantage of those in vulner-
able situations. The Labor government needs to recognise this tragic fact and take action towards stopping the
boats from leaving in the first place rather than luring them to the Christmas Island reception centre.
The coalition is committed to securing our borders against illicit drugs, disease, illegal foreign fishing and peo-
ple smuggling. The integrity of our borders cannot be maintained without proper resourcing of the Australian Cus-
toms and Border Protection Service. Since coming to office, Labor has cut funding to Customs for cargo screening
by $58.1 million, making Australia’s borders less secure and our nation more vulnerable. In this year’s budget,
Labor revealed it would axe up to 250 staff and $146.3 million from Customs and cut the funding of the Austra-
lian Federal Police by $23.5 million—the Australian Federal Police being our premier law enforcement agency.
By taking an axe to Customs, Labor has made it much easier for illicit drugs and materials that are biosecurity
threats to enter Australia. Labor has cut funding for essential border security activities, yet wasted billions of dol-
lars on school halls and pink batts programs. Labor’s mismanagement means our communities face the threat of
more illicit drugs entering the country.
I will move on to the proposals that are specifically contained within the bills. The National Security Legisla-
tion Amendment Bill 2010 proposes amendments to the legislation in four principal areas: treason, sedition and
terrorism offences; powers to investigate terrorism and serious crime; the listing and proscription of terrorist or-
ganisations; and the protection of national security information in court proceedings.
The bill proposes that the offence of treason in the Criminal Code be amended by confining the offence to those
who owe allegiance to Australia or have voluntarily placed themselves under Australia’s protection and clarifying
that the offence of assisting the enemy refers to ‘material assistance’. The offence of sedition is proposed to be
renamed ‘urging violence’ and includes urging the overthrow of the Constitution or the government and urging
interference in parliamentary elections. These provisions will require an intention that force or violence will be
used. Also proposed is a new offence of urging the use of force or violence against a group distinguished by race,
religion, nationality, national origin or political opinion. There is a lesser offence if the force does not threaten the
‘peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth’. The defence of acts done in good faith is clarified by
making it relevant that acts were done in the context of artistic work, genuine academic or scientific discourse or
in the dissemination of news or current affairs. It is proposed to repeal the offences relating to unlawful associa-
tions. These are claimed to be outdated and subsumed by the terrorist organisation laws.
Amendments to the definition of a terrorist act are proposed to include the UN as a target of the act. The defini-
tion of the harm intended to be caused by a terrorist act is extended to include psychological harm. A new offence
of committing a terrorist hoax is proposed, with a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 10 years. The offence of

MAIN COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 101

advocating the doing of a terrorist act will be amended to provide that the prosecution must establish that there is a
substantial risk that it would lead another person to commit a terrorist act. This is consistent with the concept of
risk elsewhere in the Criminal Code. The offence of providing support to a terrorist organisation is clarified to
mean ‘material support’. I would like to acknowledge at this point that the former Attorney-General the honour-
able member for Berowra was very proactive when dealing with these issues.
Amendments to the Crimes Act are proposed which are said to arise from recent operational experience. The
division relating to powers of detention will be separated into two subdivisions to deal with terrorism and non-
terrorism offences. In the case of terrorism offences, the maximum length of time that a person can be detained
during an investigation period is proposed at seven days and 20 hours. The provisions relating to re-entry under an
existing search warrant will be amended to permit re-entry within one hour in normal circumstances and 12 hours
in an emergency situation. In addition, it is proposed that entry without warrant will be permitted in emergency
situations when investigating terrorism. It is proposed that there be a right of appeal both to prosecutors and to
defendants against bail decisions if there are exceptional circumstances.
I turn to the listing and proscription of terrorist organisations. Minor amendments are proposed to provide for
listing if the minister is satisfied that the prescribed matters are on reasonable grounds. Listings are to be renewed
every three years. As mentioned in the bill’s explanatory memorandum, currently under subsection 102.1(3) of the
Criminal Code the listing of an organisation ceases to have effect two years after its commencement or if the At-
torney-General ceases to be satisfied that the organisation is directly or indirectly engaged in preparing, planning,
assisting in or fostering the doing of a terrorist act, whichever comes first. The purpose of the automatic expiration
is to ensure that, if the government wishes to continue the proscription, the Attorney-General has considered
afresh all the relevant information and is satisfied that there is sufficient factual basis to justify the proscription for
a further period. The proposed amendments will provide that a regulation proscribing an entity as a terrorist or-
ganisation under the Criminal Code will automatically expire on the third anniversary of the day on which it took
effect. This is consistent with the recommendation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Se-
curity. In its inquiry into the proscription of terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code, the committee, which
is responsible for reviewing all listings of terrorist organisations, concluded that extending the period of a listing
regulation from two to three years would offer adequate oversight.
The purpose of the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act is to protect informa-
tion from disclosure in federal criminal proceedings and civil court proceedings where the disclosure would be
likely to prejudice Australia’s national security. The act has been invoked some 38 times, and the experience in-
forms some relatively minor amendments, principally to clarify that notification should be made to a party’s legal
representatives and to streamline the definition of situations in which disclosure will be permitted. In some situa-
tions, answers to questions in court may be in writing.
I turn now to the second bill that we are debating concurrently today, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Law Enforcement Bill 2010. The establishment of the committee was a proposal of the discussion paper on pro-
posed reforms to counterterrorism and national security legislation. The proposed committee will replace and ex-
tend the functions of the current Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission. The princi-
pal extension is the inclusion of the Australian Federal Police. The committee will be asked to examine trends and
changes in criminal activities, practices and methods and to report on any desirable changes to the functions,
structure, powers and procedures of the ACC and the AFP. It will also inquire into any question in connection with
its functions that is referred to it by either house of parliament. The coalition strongly believes that governments
have a responsibility to do everything possible to improve national security to deal with potential threats to Aus-
tralia. Waiting for a terrorist attack to occur is unacceptable. It is integral that this package of reforms delivers
strong laws that protect our safety while at the same time preserve the democratic rights that protect our freedoms.
In conclusion, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (6.01 pm)—I rise today to speak on both the National Security Legislation Amendment
Bill 2010 and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010—two bills that I strongly believe
contribute to a well-balanced response to the issues of a just and secure environment for our people. I had the op-
portunity to speak on these bills during the last parliament. As you will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, prior to par-
liament being prorogued, this matter proceeded through the House. My support for the intentions underpinning
both of these bills has not changed.
In today’s rapidly changing world, one of the most important issues is the security of our people and, as such,
national security itself. The responsibility for a nation’s government to protect its land and its citizens is the most
paramount responsibility in the hands of all governments. The proposed amendments included in this package of
reforms are designed to give the Australian community confidence that our counterterrorism laws are precise and
appropriately tailored and that our new law enforcement and security agencies have the investigative tools they

MAIN COMMITTEE
102 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, 19 October 2010

need to counter terrorism. Additionally, the purpose of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement
Bill is to establish the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, which will replace the Parliamentary
Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission. The new committee will be responsible for the oversight
of not only the Australian Crime Commission but also the Australian Federal Police. Notably, this is a significant
change agreed to by the government previously. The new committee will have oversight of both of our premier
law enforcement bodies.
Many of the amendments in both bills are the result of recommendations of various independent and bipartisan
reviews that were designed to improve the practical operations of the law. The reviews include, but are certainly
not limited to, the Clarke inquiry into the matter of Dr Mohamed Haneef, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Intelligence and Security and the review of security and counterterrorism legislation. Public consultation also
played a significant part in the shaping of these bills. It was encouraging to see a meaningful level of participation
by relevant stakeholders. We take these comments and suggestions seriously and, as you will see, they have cer-
tainly found their way into the legislation. Indeed, this is important because we as a government must ensure that
our counterterrorism laws are properly understood in our communities and are appreciably consistent with com-
munity principles.
As I said, we did consult. Two of the stakeholders that made major contributions in terms of these matters were
the Police Federation of Australia and the Australian Federal Police Association. They lobbied very strongly to
ensure that there was oversight for not only the Australian Crime Commission but also the Australian Federal Po-
lice. One might ask why unions responsible for officers of the Australian Federal Police would seek to do that. I
would offer this explanation on their behalf: they believe in their professionalism as police officers and their
commitment to ensuring the professional operation of their organisation and in being able to demonstrate that they
operate to the letter of the law. Those submissions were made by the representative bodies for police officers. The
question was raised as to whether those sorts of organisations would seek to have that level of oversight. They not
only agreed to it but sought this change. That is indicative of the way those organisations are run in looking after
the professional interests of police officers in this country.
I will now take a little bit of time to go through some of the aspects contained in the bills. The National Secu-
rity Legislation Amendment Bill contains amendments to treason and sedition offences in the Criminal Code. The
government accepted the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission report, which included
removing the term ‘sedition’ and replacing it with the phrase ‘urging violence’ and clarifying and modernising
elements of the offences. The bill also extends the offence to cover urging violence against a group or individual
on the basis of national or ethnic origin in addition to race, religion, nationality or political opinion.
The bill amends the definition of ‘advocates’ in the Criminal Code to clarify that an organisation advocates the
doing of a terrorist act if the organisation directly praises the doing of a terrorist act in circumstances where there
is a substantial risk that such praise might have the effect of leading a person to engage in a terrorist act. This is
necessary because currently an organisation may be listed as a terrorist organisation only if the Attorney-General
is satisfied that the organisation advocates the doing of a terrorist act.
The bill also extends the period of a regulation that lists a terrorist organisation from two to three years. Cur-
rently under the Crimes Act it is clear that an arrested person may be detained, prior to being brought before a
magistrate or other judicial officer, for the purpose of investigating whether that person committed an offence for
which they were arrested or for the purpose of investigating whether the person committed another Common-
wealth offence that an official suspects them of committing. The amendments in this bill will clarify and improve
the practical operation of part 1C of the Crimes Act to address issues that were raised in the Clarke inquiry into
the Dr Haneef matter.
The Crimes Act does not currently provide police with the power to enter premises without a warrant in emer-
gency circumstances relating to terrorism offences where there is material that may pose a risk to public health
and safety. I know that has been spoken about in this place on a number occasions when there are extraordinary
circumstances. Circumstances when police do need to enter premises include when they need to secure issues that
may relate not only to terrorism but also the product of what they may be doing, whether it be bomb making or
other things, to actually secure premises to protect the public. This bill will make it abundantly clear and will pro-
vide new power for police to enter premises without a warrant in those emergency circumstances.
Further, the time available for law enforcement officers to re-enter premises under a search warrant can be ex-
tended by 12 hours or, where authorised by an issuing authority in exceptional circumstances, a longer period.
Again, this is to have regard to the fact that not everything is being done simply to collect evidence. Some of those
issues of re-entry could be very much in relation to ensuring the protection of the community and the health and
safety of residents, et cetera, and therefore those flexibilities are built into this legislation. This amendment is nec-

MAIN COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 103

essary as the time limitation does not provide sufficient scope for police to re-enter premises if they need to
evacuate the premises because they have discovered, for example, something that may endanger the life and safety
of police officers. As a consequence, delay in the period of the warrant has been occasioned.
The bill also gives the Prime Minister the ability to request the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security
to inquire into an intelligence or security matter relating to any Commonwealth department or agency. This re-
flects the increasing interaction between a range of Commonwealth departments and agencies and the Australian
intelligence community on intelligence and security matters.
As I said earlier, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010 will also improve oversight
of the Australian Federal Police by establishing the new committee on law enforcement. This committee will re-
place and extend the functions of the current Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commis-
sion, of which I have been a member ever since I came to this parliament some 5½ years ago. The Joint Commit-
tee on Law Enforcement will be responsible for providing broad parliamentary oversight of the AFP and the Aus-
tralian Crime Commission.
Again, it is important to note that the establishment of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement
implements the government’s election commitment to improve oversight of the Australian Federal Police. Finally,
The Australian government remains conscious of the need to protect our community from the threat of terrorism
without unnecessarily encroaching on the individual rights and liberties that are fundamental to our democratic
system and way of life.
In introducing measures which will clarify the operation of the laws and bolster existing safeguards and ac-
countability mechanisms, the government is able to ensure that laws remain responsive to human rights and the
fundamental freedoms that we enjoy. I am confident that this package of reforms that has been framed following
extensive consultation, which I referred to earlier, will go a long way to helping us meet the problematic issue that
confronts modern nations—that is, national security challenges. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (6.13 pm)—As I was listening to the member for Fowler concluding his contribution,
I began to think that it has been a little bit more than 10 years since I finished my role as one of the operations
majors with the Australian Army for Joint Task Force Gold, Joint Task Force 112, which had responsibility during
the Olympic Games in Sydney for counterterrorism security in Sydney. In the intervening 10-year period, if I had
not been elected to this place perhaps I would have been wasting a fair bit of my time since then. Fortunately, I
have the honour of serving here now.
When I think back to those days working on the Olympics for over two years, and the exercises that we under-
took and the threats that we planned to counter, I realise how fascinating I have always found security matters.
Although I served in the Australian Federal Police for a couple of years before I joined the Army, and then served
15 years in the Army, I have always found matters to do with security particularly fascinating and interesting. So I
am glad to be able to stand up and make a contribution on the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010
and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010.
I would like to begin by speaking on the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill. I understand that many
of the amendments arose from reviews and inquiries that have taken place over the past three years. National se-
curity is, of course, very serious business and, when faced with an immediate threat, a government must immedi-
ately respond. Consequently it is right to review legislation further down the track to ensure that the balance be-
tween safety and security and rights and liberties is appropriate. We should recall that in the last 10 years there
have been a number of significant events that have demonstrated to us that this nation is not immune from the im-
pacts of terrorism and that national security is a consideration despite the air-sea gap around our island continent.
In the year 2000 we had the highly successful Olympic Games—which I have mentioned—in Sydney, with a
number of events, such as the football, in other places. The games were a magic moment for our country, with no
security incidents. However, on 11 September 2001, just a bit more than 12 months later, terrorism struck our
close ally, the United States of America, and thousands of people lost their lives, including 10 Australian citizens.
This attack showed that the attack on civilian targets was very much on the agenda for al-Qaeda and served as a
warning for the future, even for us here in Australia. Again, it was just over a year later, on 12 October 2002, that
202 people, including 88 Australians, were killed when Jemaah Islamiah, a radical Islamic terrorist group, bombed
the Kuta district of Bali. Clearly there could be no doubt that Australians were being specifically targeted and
therefore at a far higher risk than we may have considered we were facing in the past.
On 5 August 2003 the JW Marriott Hotel in Jakarta was the subject of another bomb which killed 12 and in-
jured 150. The link between the 2002 Bali bombing and the 2003 Marriott bombing attacks was Hambali, said to
be al-Qaeda’s man in South-East Asia. Also—and we should note this as well—he had been working on al-
Qaeda’s anthrax program. On 9 September 2004 a bomb located in a van was detonated outside the Australian

MAIN COMMITTEE
104 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, 19 October 2010

Embassy in Jakarta, killing either nine or 11 people nearby, depending on the reports of either Indonesian or Aus-
tralian sources at the time. On 1 October 2005, 26 people were killed when bombs were exploded in two locations
in Bali. Three explosions took place and three unexploded bombs were later found. Again, Bali is noted as being
extremely popular with Australians and this attack was clearly intended, in part at least, to kill and injure Austra-
lians.
I also note that the United Kingdom was subject to terrorist attacks on the public transport system in 2005 and
2007, which demonstrated the risks of home-grown terrorism, or attacks on the nation by those who are actually
citizens of that nation or at least residents. On 17 July 2009, the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta was again bombed, with
the loss of nine lives, several of which were Australian—and we have made comment on that before in the parlia-
ment. It was a matter of just weeks later when five Australian citizens, four of Somalian origin and one Lebanese
man, were arrested for plotting an attack on the Holsworthy Army Base in Sydney. The fact that those who seek to
come here and not stay in their original country and then find such fault with that country that they wish to carry
out terrorist attacks is a phenomenon that is increasingly facing the wider Western world. Indeed, there have been
cases of native-born people and, for all intents and purposes, people of Anglo-Saxon origin, who have also taken
up violence. It is therefore essential that laws be enacted first and foremost to provide sufficient protection to the
general population. However, as I said before, it is right that such laws be the subject of review, and so it is that
we find ourselves with this legislation before the House. Indeed, apart from the external parliamentary reviews
over the last three years, this year the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee saw changes
to the legislation from what was introduced into parliament earlier in the year.
In the case of this bill it is my view that the seven main amendments that it contains fundamentally represent
procedural changes, and I really do not find any great strengthening in the laws from what is proposed. Indeed, I
would say that the strengthening that is mentioned in the Attorney-General’s second reading speech about entering
premises without a warrant is confined to emergency circumstances. I believe that the really strong laws were in-
troduced by the former government. On the soft side, there have been changes to the period of investigation—
detention being reduced to seven days and some hours. While I personally feel that this change is unwise, I under-
stand that the AFP and the Australian Crime Commission support such a change, and I appreciate their expert
view on this matter. We will see how that will turn out in the longer term.
On the high side, I am glad that the government have not introduced this bill with the proposal in the discussion
paper to provide detention as an option only on the basis of reasonable belief. Instead, thankfully, they have left
the standard as ‘on suspicion’. We would all be aware that the vast majority of Australians supported these laws
when they were first brought into parliament by the last government, as most Australians desire protection and
would say, ‘If you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.’ While I am not as confident as
the minister that the safety of Australian people is best provided for in these amendments, we are supporting the
bill as it is drafted, and it is worthy to remember that the laws that were introduced by the last government, in es-
sence, remain strong.
In making comments on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010, I would say that,
as it is proposed that I will be a member of the new committee, I look forward to its operation. As we know, it will
be established because of the outcomes of the discussion paper on proposed reforms to the counterterrorism and
national security legislation. The committee will replace and extend many of the functions of an existing parlia-
mentary joint committee, and I look forward to the committee’s oversight being extended to the Australian Federal
Police. Clearly I share the view that the Australian Federal Police must be able to do its job, and we as a parlia-
ment, particularly this new committee, should ensure that the AFP’s structures, functions, procedures and powers
are modified as required to reflect changes in trends of criminal activities. I look forward to this opportunity to
serve on the committee and fully support the passage of this bill.
To conclude, I would say that strong and effective laws to protect national security were delivered by the How-
ard government, and they were borne out of the serious and threatening circumstances of the time. The risk re-
mains with us right now, and in the future we should exercise extreme caution before we retreat from them, as I
believe that the safety of citizens depends on this parliament always having the right laws in place.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (6.22 pm)—I commend the former speaker for his contribution to the debate and I
rise, obviously, to speak in support of the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 and the Parliamen-
tary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010. I understand these bills have already passed the House of
Representatives but lapsed when the 42nd Parliament was dissolved. Nevertheless, I am pleased to take this op-
portunity to speak on these bills, which work together to improve transparency, accountability and public safety.
Terrorism and organised crime pose a great challenge to all modern democracies. We heard this today in Prime
Minister Gillard’s opening remarks in the debate about the war in Afghanistan and Australia’s involvement in that.

MAIN COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 105

All governments face a great challenge to protect their citizens. In fact, when all is said and done, perhaps our
greatest fundamental responsibility as a government, as a federal government particularly, is to ensure that Austra-
lians can sleep safe and sound in their beds at night. And that means that the Gillard Labor government gives our
law enforcement agencies the powers they need to defeat terrorism and organised crime and provide comfort to all
Australians. However, in doing this we must uphold our ideals of a democracy and freedom or we will destroy the
country that we are elected to protect.
The National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 implements a number of improvements to antiterror-
ism laws. This is part of the Gillard Labor government’s response to independent and bipartisan reviews of Aus-
tralian national security and counterterrorism legislation. It clarifies the operation of treason, sedition and certain
terrorism offences in the Criminal Code. The name of sedition offences will be changed to ‘urging violence’, and
the events of urging violence against a group on the basis of race, religion, nationality or political opinion will be
expanded to cover urging violence or violence on the basis of ethnic or national origin and will be expanded to
include urging force or violence against an individual, not just a group. The offence will also now apply where the
use of force or violence does not threaten the peace, order and good governance of the Commonwealth.
The bill also implements the recommendation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Secu-
rity to extend the period of regulation that lists a terrorist organisation from two to three years. Currently organisa-
tions may be listed as a terrorist organisation if the Attorney-General is satisfied that the organisation advocates
carrying out a terrorist attack. This bill amends the definition ‘advocates’ to include an organisation that directly
praises the doing of a terrorist act where there is substantial risk that such praise might lead a person to engage in
a terrorist act. This is an important change.
The bill also amends the investigation and retaining powers largely in response to the Clarke inquiry into the
shameful case of Dr Mohamed Haneef. Surely all students of justice will remember that this was not justice’s fin-
est hour in Australian history. We all remember when Dr Mohamed Haneef was detained without charge following
the London car bomb attacks in 2007. We may never know the full extent of communications between the Federal
Police and Scotland Yard. However, I remember the sick feeling in my guts when this Indian doctor, who was
working hard for his Australian patients on the Gold Coast, was detained. I had a feeling that he was just not get-
ting a fair go, and I attended public forums in my electorate to express that concern. This bill clarifies that a per-
son always needs to be under a valid state of arrest to be detained under part IC. It also sets a maximum seven-day
limit on the amount of time that can be specified by a magistrate and clarifies the procedures that apply when
making an application to extend the period of investigation.
As I said from the outset, our laws which protect us from terrorists must not compromise our freedoms. If they
ever do so, that is when the terrorists win. So this bill amends the Crimes Act 1914 to give police the power to
enter premises without a warrant in emergency circumstances relating to a terrorism offence where there is mate-
rial that may pose a risk to public health or safety. Police exercising this power do not have the same powers as a
general search warrant, and are limited in what they can do once on the premises. This bill also grants the prosecu-
tion and the defendant a specific right of appeal against a decision to grant or refuse bail, and this amendment will
ensure consistency and clarity across all states and territories.
I turn now to the related bill before the House, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill
2010. This bill will improve oversight of the activities of the Australian Federal Police. It does so by establishing
the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, which will replace the Parliamentary Joint Committee
on the Australian Crime Commission. The new committee will continue the work of its predecessor and also pro-
vide broad parliamentary oversight of the AFP. The committee will also be expected to examine trends in criminal
activities and report on recommendations to improve the functions, structure, powers and procedures of the Aus-
tralian Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police. This parliamentary committee is the appropriate
body for the accountability of oversight of this agency and I commend the Attorney-General on this initiative.
We cannot become complacent in the fight against terrorism. That means ensuring our laws protect the commu-
nity from the threat of terrorism while upholding these important individual rights that stretch back to the Magna
Carta and beyond. Through these bills, the Gillard Labor government is demonstrating its commitment to respon-
sive counterterrorism laws with appropriate safeguards and accountability mechanisms. I commend the bill to the
House.
Mr McCLELLAND (Barton—Attorney-General) (6.29 pm)—in reply—I thank honourable members for their
contribution to the debate on the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 and the Parliamentary Joint
Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010, these bills both being introduced for a second time. To address some
of the points made in debate, the member for Stirling made some comments about funding for border security and
national security agencies. It is of course tremendously important that these agencies be well resourced; ensuring

MAIN COMMITTEE
106 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, 19 October 2010

national security is the highest responsibility of any government. I remind honourable members that the Australian
government is committed to building a more secure Australia through supporting and resourcing our security, in-
telligence and law enforcement agencies, as well as by promoting an international environment that is stable,
peaceful and prosperous, and by having a legal structure that is balanced and appropriate.
In terms of resourcing, the Australian government invested over $500 million in additional funding to further
strengthen Australia’s national security capacity in this financial year, 2010-11. This $500 million investment is a
key part of the first ever coordinated national security budget, which invested a total of $4.3 billion in national
security, border protection, aviation security and supporting the Australian Defence Force. In fact, that investment
this financial year builds on the $685 million in additional funding that was part of the national security package
in the previous financial year, 2009-10. So very considerable funds are being applied to what is an area of priority
for this government.
With regard to the specifics of the bills, after extensive consultation these bills were considered by the Senate
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee and passed by this House before parliament was pro-
rogued on 19 July 2010. The two bills comprise a package of reforms to Australia’s national security and counter-
terrorism legislation aimed at ensuring our laws are appropriately targeted and also accountable in their operation.
The National Security Legislation Amendment Bill will implement the government’s response to several inde-
pendent and, indeed, bipartisan parliamentary committee reviews of Australia’s national security and counterter-
rorism legislation. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill will establish the Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, which will replace the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian
Crime Commission. This new committee will be responsible for the oversight of the Australian Crime Commis-
sion and also the Australian Federal Police.
I thank the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for its detailed consideration of the
National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement
Bill 2010 when these bills were previously introduced. The government has carefully considered the recommenda-
tions made by the Senate committee, and I can inform members that the government accepts or accepts in princi-
ple three of the committee’s five key recommendations. In response to recommendation 1, the explanatory memo-
randum now clarifies the reasons for including the proposed urging violence offences in chapter 5 of the Criminal
Code. Recommendations 3 and 5 of the Senate committee were not related to amending legislation but were rec-
ommendations the government supports in principle. Recommendation 3 was that the Australian Law Reform
Commission conduct an inquiry into the pre-charge detention regime under part IC of the Crimes Act. The gov-
ernment acknowledges that the detention of a person is a very serious matter and, indeed, it was touched on by my
colleague the member for Moreton. The government acknowledges that and that it is important that the provisions
of part IC be closely monitored to ensure that operationally an appropriate balance between the rights of the ar-
rested person and the needs of law enforcement be maintained. The government is therefore supportive of the
spirit and intent of the Senate committee’s recommendation. However, the utility of a public inquiry at this stage
the government believes to be questionable, as it would not be able to assess the operational effects of the current
amendments. Accordingly, my department will arrange a broader review of the pre-charge detention processes
once there has been further operational use of and experience with the provisions.
In recommendation 5 the Senate committee recommended that I provide a ministerial direction or additional
material to explain the circumstances in which the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Crime Commission
and the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police should proactively report matters to the Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Law Enforcement. The government accepts this recommendation in principle as well. Once
established, the committee may wish to actively engage with the agencies and outline the types of matters that the
committee would like to be kept apprised of. It is open to the new committee in accordance with the normal prac-
tices and procedures of parliamentary committees to request regular briefings from the agencies or to make open
or specific requests for written submissions from the agencies on matters concerning the performance of the agen-
cies’ functions. The government expects the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission to
proactively engage with the new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement by keeping the committee
apprised of relevant and significant matters that relate to the general performance of the agencies’ functions, and I
am committed to taking appropriate steps to ensure this occurs. I have no doubt that the agencies will cooperate in
that respect.
The Senate committee’s recommendation 2 has not been accepted, as it is desirable, the government believes, to
retain the good faith defence to the urging violence offences. Repealing the good faith defence would remove an
explicit legislative confirmation that a court, in considering whether an offence has been committed, may consider
any relevant matter and specifically whether the context of the act was in the course of an artistic, academic or

MAIN COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 107

journalistic work. It should be noted, however, that the defence is not absolute but goes to the discretion of the
court.
Recommendation 4, which relates to the period of specified disregarded time in the investigation of terrorism
offences, also has not been accepted, on the basis that a maximum cap of seven days is, the government believes,
reasonable and appropriate.
In conclusion, the government is confident that the reforms contained in both bills deliver strong laws that pro-
tect our safety while preserving democratic rights and protecting our freedoms consistent with the principles of the
rule of law. I thank members for their contribution and I commend these bills to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON LAW ENFORCEMENT BILL 2010
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 30 September, on motion by Mr McClelland:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
OZONE PROTECTION AND SYNTHETIC GREENHOUSE GAS MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT
BILL 2010
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 29 September, on motion by Mr Burke:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (6.39 pm)—It gives me great pleasure to give bipartisan support, on behalf of the federal
opposition, to the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Amendment Bill 2010. This bill
fits in the context of bipartisan action on matters relating to our global atmosphere. There will be many areas of
bipartisanship and some of disagreement. This falls squarely within the area of action which is jointly agreed upon
to address a problem which is jointly agreed upon using a mechanism which is jointly agreed upon and which has
a long bipartisan history.
I want to begin briefly with the background and history of the bill. Secondly, I will deal with the amendments
and, thirdly, with the steps forward. When we look at the background, what we see is a successful example of the
international community working, over a period of many years, in the relationship between science and policy-
makers. There was an identification of the risk posed by the release of ozone-depleting gases: the hole in the
ozone layer, the potential for it to further expand, the impact on human life and the impact on human agriculture.
These were real and profound and were identified early. They led over time to the creation of the Montreal Proto-
col on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. That protocol has been in many ways a model for cooperative
and effective international action. The protocol has a history which includes Australian support on both sides of
politics.
Let us identify the source problem. The source problem is largely related to the refrigeration and cooling indus-
tries, although it is broader than that, examples being refrigeration and air conditioning; fire protection; foam
blowers; solvent manufacture; fumigation; and aerosol. All of these sorts of human activities relied upon gases
which subsequently proved to have been ozone depleting in many cases. There was a recognition that this was a
contribution to a global problem. It passed through the classic case and circumstance of the tragedy of the com-
mons, and there was a recognition of a need to respond. That in turn led to the creation of the Montreal protocol
and to the creation in Australia of the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989.
This bill was supported on both sides. It represented an effective step forward. It prohibited, in large part, the
import, export and manufacture of chlorofluorocarbons and related products—ozone-depleting gases—without an
essential uses or used substance licence. It also set in place a restrictive regime and a licensing regime for general
ozone-depleting gases. The coalition’s subsequent role in government was to ensure that there was a review of the
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act by Environment Australia and then, beyond
that, that there were amendments in 2003 which dealt with and advanced the causes—in particular where there

MAIN COMMITTEE
108 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, 19 October 2010

were synthetic greenhouse gases that were used as a replacement. Those different elements of the history show
bipartisan cooperation in this space.
Now we come to this particular bill. It is fairly simple in what it seeks to do. It seeks to ensure that the protec-
tive regime is enhanced and expanded but that the compliance measures include civil rather than just criminal
penalties. So the strict liability regime and the nature of the penalties is being adapted so as to recognise that there
can be inadvertence and that a ‘one size fits all’ penalty may not be appropriate in this space. That is the direction
and the nature of what we are doing here. It ensures that we are working towards management of our ozone-
depleting gases. In that context, what it shows—and here I go to the future—is what the work that I did in my own
thesis in 1990, just after this bill was passed, showed: that there are a number of different ways in which an effec-
tive regime for addressing a global environmental issue can be implemented. It can be effective through regula-
tion, of which this bill is a prime example. It can be effective if the right economic modelling tool is used. It can
be effective through education.
Economic modelling tools can take two completely different formats. They can take the form of a production
tax on all of the elements which have been eliminated. In the case of the North American sulphur dioxide markets
this was quite effective because there was a ready replacement. That was a very effective means of addressing the
acid rain problem in the north-east.
Or the tools can be ineffective if there is no ready replacement. They will simply drive up prices on inelastic
goods if demand remains constant or close to constant and no ready substitute is available. In that situation you
can use abatement purchasing or buybacks such as that which is proposed by the government in the water market.
The government’s intention in the water market is to buy back on a lowest-cost tendered approach.
Our approach to greenhouse gas management between now and 2020 is to operate a carbon buyback, which we
have shorthanded as ‘direct action’. But that again is an economic instrument based on lowest-cost abatement ten-
dering. In short, we will find the cheapest greenhouse emissions reductions in Australia and then we will acquire
them rather than raising an inelastic good’s price dramatically, as we have seen with the 60 per cent price rise for
electricity in New South Wales that has had almost no impact on consumption. Demand management through
massive price increases on an inelastic good is classically not considered to be an effective mechanism. Abatement
purchasing is, however, a very effective mechanism.
This bill is an example of an effective regulatory bill. The sulphur dioxide markets in North America are exam-
ples of an effective emissions trading scheme. It is about having the right tool for the right problem. That is where
this bill fits in and that is where our approach on greenhouse gas management fits in through trying to choose the
right tool for that problem.
I am delighted to offer bipartisan support for this bill on behalf of the opposition. We will take a constructive
approach but we will not be co-opted into having to agree with everything. Overwhelmingly, we seek to find
common ground where possible. I thank the government and in particular the advisers from the department for
their good work. It is a good bill. It is an important action that seeks to improve our capacity to limit ozone-
depleting gases.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (6.47 pm)—I rise to give my strong support to the Ozone Protection and Synthetic
Greenhouse Gas Management Amendment Bill 2010. I particularly welcome the support of the opposition on this
bill and thank the member for Flinders for his contribution. Some people in the opposition might be a little bit
haphazard and divided when it comes to meaningful action on climate change but on this bill and certainly on
some other initiatives, such as renewable energy measures, the opposition have been willing partners. I again
commend the member for Flinders especially for this approach.
In recent years Australia has made significant progress in phasing out and managing those substances that con-
tribute to the depletion of the very important ozone layer. The Sydney Morning Herald reported this week that the
hole in the ozone layer above the Antarctic is the smallest it has been in a decade. But wait, it is unfortunately still
24 million square kilometres. The good news is that the ozone layer is slowly repairing itself; the bad news is that
it is still a significant size and a problem.
It goes to show, once again, that people do have an impact on our globe. Before we knew that they did any
damage to the ozone layer, chlorofluorocarbons were used extensively in refrigerants, aerosol propellants and sol-
vents. It turned out that CFCs move around the globe, eventually rising to the stratosphere and at about 12 kilome-
tres above the earth they are broken down by sunlight. They release chlorine, which reacts with and destroys
stratospheric ozone. Scientists believe that one chlorine atom can destroy more than 100,000 ozone molecules.
When the scientists showed us the evidence that CFCs were ripping the ozone layer apart, thankfully the world
responded, and quickly. It was one of the finest hours for the scientists, the politicians and everyone else. It is a
real example of global collaboration.

MAIN COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 109

Australia banned the importation and the manufacture of CFCs from 31 December 1995 for all but essential
uses. The evidence shows us that it worked. As I said, the hole in the ozone layer is getting slowly smaller, as re-
ported by the Sydney Morning Herald this week. It goes to show that when the world acts together we can dra-
matically affect the climate for better and for worse. Andrew Darby put it well in the Sydney Morning Herald arti-
cle when he wrote:
There are few better scientific examples of this in contemporary times than the clever detective work that found ozone deple-
tion, established its environmental costs, fingered the culprits, and got rid of them.
If only we could use this example as our inspiration to respond to other climate challenges such as carbon pollu-
tion, for example.
Australia is a signatory to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Maybe we should move the Copenhagen discussions to
Montreal; it might be a more agreeable city in which to reach a global agreement. Nevertheless, these interna-
tional agreements are implemented through the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act
1989—an act which after 20 years is difficult to enforce and out of date but, in its time, helped to achieve a culture
change here in Australia regarding CFCs.
This bill amends the act to ensure better compliance and more appropriate enforcement provisions. The bill in-
troduces a civil penalty and infringement notice scheme which mirrors the current criminal offences. Under the
current system, licensees and permit holders must meet a number of conditions prescribed under the act. As it
stands, the only penalty that exists for failing these conditions is the suspension or cancellation of a permit and a
criminal conviction. As an alternative, the bill introduces an infringement notice scheme for some offences. This is
a far more appropriate course of action for these offences, which are mostly relatively minor. Also under this bill
inspectors will be better qualified and face tougher conduct requirements. Their powers will also be expanded to
allow inspectors to assess onsite if a breach has occurred.
I also welcome the new provisions in the act setting out the rights of private individuals relating to the collec-
tion, handling and return of evidence. The bill also clarifies the purpose of the Ozone Protection and SGG Ac-
count, which was established under the act to support the development of evidence based policy research. The bill
also extends the ban on air conditioning equipment containing hydrochlorofluorocarbons to be extended to the
import and manufacture of hydrochlorofluorocarbon refrigeration and air conditioning equipment. This supports
our commitment and our legally binding international obligation to phase out hydrochlorofluorocarbons.
This bill does allow for exceptions where a ban would currently be impractical. When governments engage the
community about banning risky and dangerous substances from use there is often an outcry from industry that the
world as we know it is over, that the sky is falling, so to speak—the Henny Penny phenomenon, I call it. In my
experience this actually undersells industry’s ability in this country to find new and innovative solutions. Take for
example the recent announcement by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority to ban endo-
sulfan, a chemical used widely by tropical fruit and vegetable growers, nut farmers and cotton farmers, particu-
larly in Queensland. Industry had warned for some time that they could not do without the chemical, but when the
APVMA finally banned it industry was quite accepting of the ruling and more than capable of moving on with
safer, equally effective chemicals. Sixty other countries, including the European Union and New Zealand, had
already banned endosulfan because of the neurological and reproductive risk to farm workers and wildlife. I note,
in the case of this bill, that industry have been thoroughly consulted about the changes and they are particularly
supportive of the provision for civil penalties and the restrictions on the import and manufacture of HCFC air
conditioning equipment.
Once again, it gives me some hope that when this House again turns to the broader issue of climate change
we—and I mean all of us; both sides of the House—will not shirk our responsibility a second time. I hope we will
look at the evidence presented before us by the scientists and that we will act. I commend the bill to the House.
Dr WASHER (Moore) (6.54 pm)—Compliments to the members for Moreton and Flinders for speaking on the
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Amendment Bill 2010. This is a very good piece of
legislation. The bill makes four general amendments to the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Man-
agement Act 1989. Firstly, the bill introduces a civil penalties regime and provides for the establishment of an in-
fringement notice scheme. The introduction of a civil penalties and infringement notice regime will provide
greater flexibility in providing appropriate enforcement. Currently the act contains criminal offences or suspen-
sion or cancellation of licences for breaches. Holders of various permits and licences are required to meet certain
conditions, and a breach of condition can only result in a suspension or cancellation of the licence. This can be an
overly harsh and inappropriate outcome, depending on the circumstances.

MAIN COMMITTEE
110 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, 19 October 2010

Secondly, the bill clarifies the powers of inspectors, particularly in relation to the collection and testing of
ozone-depleting substances and synthetic greenhouse gases and search of electronic data storage. It also provides
for inspectors to be assisted in exercising their powers. This can be particularly important where tactical special-
ists are required. Thirdly, the bill improves the procedures for dealing with evidential material, including the sei-
zure, retention, return or forfeiture of that material, and providing for enhanced testing arrangements. Fourthly, it
clarifies the purposes of the ozone account, which is a special account established by the act to support the devel-
opment of evidence based policy by allowing research to be funded from the account.
The Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989 enacts Australia’s international
obligations under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Montreal protocol sets out each country’s obligations to phase
out the use of ozone-depleting substances. It is predicted that if all countries continue to meet their obligations
under the Montreal protocol the ozone layer will recover to pre-1980 levels by around the middle of the century in
the mid-latitudes and in the period 2060 to 2075 over the Antarctic.
Ozone is actually one of the more noxious pollutants of the troposphere, the lowest 12 kilometres or so of the
atmosphere. It is also a potent greenhouse gas. However, the fact that most of it lies in the stratosphere, which has
the highest concentrations, 20 and 35 kilometres above the ground, gives it beneficial effects. The ozone layer
absorbs about 97 to 99 per cent of the sun’s high-frequency UV light, light which is potentially damaging to life
on earth. And it is thought that every one per cent decrease in the earth’s ozone layer is projected to increase the
amount of UV light exposure to the lower atmosphere by two per cent. Over the earth’s surface the ozone layer’s
average thickness is about three millimetres.
In the stratosphere, formation of ozone, O3, is initiated by the action of UV light on oxygen molecules, O2,
which then split into highly reactive oxygen atoms or O. Once released, an oxygen atom can combine with an in-
active oxygen molecule to make ozone. Ozone itself goes through a cycle of reactions. It also absorbs UV, break-
ing it into constituent parts only to form again. After many trips around this cycle, the end comes when an ozone
molecule encounters a free oxygen atom and is converted back into ordinary oxygen. Ozone is catalysed by a se-
ries of highly reactive elements and molecules known as free radicals. They speed up the destruction of ozone and
constantly re-emerge to trigger another round of reactions. This is why trace constituents such as chlorine atoms
can have such marked effects on ozone levels. As the member who spoke previously said, it is estimated that one
chlorine atom can destroy up to 100,000 ozone molecules.
The catalysts in the stratosphere come from the breakdown of gases which percolate up from the lower atmos-
phere. For example, chlorine methane, given off by rotting plants and burning vegetation, is a natural source of
stratospheric chlorine. However, this supply has been dwarfed by synthetic compounds such as chlorofluorocar-
bons or CFCs. Ironically, certain greenhouse gases such as methane or carbon dioxide mitigate the damage caused
by CFCs. By trapping heat in the lower atmosphere, the stratosphere is cooled, slowing the rate of ozone destruc-
tion.
The destruction of the ozone layer became of particular relevance to Australia when the ‘ozone hole’ was de-
tected above Antarctica in 1985. The ozone hole is not actually a hole but a region of exceptionally depleted ozone
in the stratosphere over the Antarctic that happens at the beginning of the Southern Hemisphere spring. The hole
was observed as being at its largest on 24 September 2006 when it was 29.5 million square kilometres. The maxi-
mum ozone hole area for 2009 was 24 million square kilometres on 17 September. So why did the hole form here?
Destructive free radicals such as the chlorine atom can become locked up in a more stable reservoir of molecules
such as hydrogen chloride. They are then unavailable for reactions that destroy ozone. But if something releases
the chlorine into its active form again, then it can set about destroying ozone. This is thought to be the reason be-
hind the special chemistry of the ozone hole over Antarctica.
Due in part to Antarctica’s land mass, winter around the South Pole is especially cold. The sun disappears for
six months, and the rapid cooling that results sets up strong westerly winds that swirl around the pole up in the
stratosphere. The stable polar vortex isolates the air within it and leads to some odd chemistry. The air becomes
cold enough—around 80 degrees centigrade below freezing—for icy particles to form, known collectively as po-
lar stratospheric clouds. Reactions on the surfaces of these icy particles convert stable chlorine reservoir mole-
cules such as hydrogen chloride into compounds that rapidly are broken up by sunlight. When the sunlight returns
in the spring there is a burst of active chlorine radicals, hence the presence of the Antarctic ozone hole every
spring.
It is also now thought that the hole is responsible for the reduced uptake of CO2 by the Southern Ocean. In
most ocean regions the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels has led to an increase in CO2 absorption; not in the
Southern Ocean, however, where carbon absorption has flattened out. Although the Southern Ocean is a major

MAIN COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 111

carbon sink, taking up around 15 per cent per cent of CO2 emissions, it is thought that between 1987 and 2004 the
uptake was reduced by up to nearly 2½ billion tonnes. This is equivalent to the amount of carbon that all the
world’s oceans absorb in a year. The reason for this is wind.
The decreasing stratospheric ozone and rising greenhouse gases are altering the radiation balance of the earth’s
atmosphere. This in turn alters and strengthens the westerly winds that blow over the Southern Ocean. The
stronger surface winds are enhancing the circulation of the ocean, raising carbon-rich waters from the deep to the
surface. This then reduces the capability of the surface water to absorb atmospheric carbon. Also, perhaps more
troubling is the higher carbon levels in the shallow waters, as this make these waters more acidic due to the forma-
tion of carbonic acid, and it is in these shallow waters where most organisms that require calcium carbonate for
shells dwell. The chain of causation in earth’s ecosystem is very complex. It is unlikely that anyone predicted that
increasing our emissions of CFCs would have affected our uptake of carbon dioxide by our Southern Ocean.
Our legislation which regulates our actions that may cause harm or adverse disruption to our ecosystems must
be amended over time to ensure that they remain effective. In 2003 the coalition amended the act to include syn-
thetic greenhouse gases that had started to be used as alternatives with the phasing-out of the ozone-depleting sub-
stances during the 1990s. Whilst ozone benign, some of the alternatives brought in were potent greenhouse gases,
such as the hydrofluorocarbons and the perfluorocarbons. As this bill improves the effectiveness of the act, I
commend it to the House.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Cabinet Secretary and Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Effi-
ciency) (7.03 pm)—The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer is a clear demonstration
that the international community can address global environmental challenges through multilateral action. Actions
taken by developed and developing countries through the Montreal protocol since it was agreed in 1987 have seen
more than 95 per cent of ozone-depleting substances phased out. Scientific observations show that concentrations
of chlorine and bromine in the atmosphere are now reducing. Scientists predict that the ozone layer will recover
by around the middle of this century in the mid latitudes and by around 2070 over the Antarctic if all countries
continue to meet their obligations under the Montreal protocol.
Australia has been a strong advocate of action to address ozone depletion since Montreal protocol negotiations
began in the 1980s. In current circumstances it is worth observing that the Montreal protocol is a great example of
how coordinated global action can be used to combat a diffuse global threat to the environment, when we contem-
plate the type of global action that is now required in relation to dangerous climate change. Australia has met or
exceeded all of our obligations under the Montreal protocol.
This bill, theOzone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Amendment Bill 2010, will facili-
tate Australia’s final phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons. The Australian government and industry agreed to an
accelerated phase-out of HCFCs in the early 1990s which will see Australia phase out 99.5 per cent of HCFCs by
2016. The provision for restrictions on refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment containing HCFCs will re-
duce demand for HCFCs in the servicing sector as we head towards our final phase-out. This will also benefit
consumers by preventing outdated technology from entering the market. This approach builds on Australia’s suc-
cessful program to phase out chlorofluorocarbons in the 1990s.
The bill will bring our compliance regime into the 21st century. It clearly sets out the role of Commonwealth
officials and the rights of people, businesses and property that are covered by the act. The civil penalty provisions
offer an alternative to the existing severe and inflexible criminal offence provisions. They will provide effective
compliance options without threatening the livelihood of minor offenders. The bill will build on the substantial
efforts made to minimise preventable emissions of synthetic greenhouse gases. The enhanced compliance regime
will further improve standards in the refrigeration, air-conditioning and fire protection industries and lead to lower
emissions. I thank the members for Flinders, Moreton and Moore for the contributions that they have made to this
debate. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.

MAIN COMMITTEE
112 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, 19 October 2010

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES (EXCISE) LEVIES AMENDMENT BILL 2010

Second Reading
Debate resumed from 29 September, on motion by Dr Mike Kelly:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (7.08 pm)—I rise to speak to the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment
Bill 2010. The bill before the House is another example of where an agricultural industry itself has driven sensi-
ble, practical measures for reform to ensure that our industries continue to use sustainable production methods and
best practice to keep ahead of the game. This bill amends the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999 to in-
crease the cap on the research and development, or R&D, component of the laying chickens levy from 10c to 30c
per laying chicken. It may seem minor, but it is a major win for the industry and a shining example of how a pro-
active industry can drive change.
The proposed levy cap increase to 30c will enable increases in the operative levy rate above 10c. It does not
mean it will go to 30c. It gives the industry and the minister the ability to raise the levy progressively up to that
amount as the industry and the minister see fit. It is in response to the egg industry requesting that the operative
levy rate be increased beyond the current 10c levy that is in place. This increase would enable the Australian Egg
Corporation Ltd, AECL, on behalf of the egg industry, to meet the core R&D objectives that it and the industry
have, as outlined in its 2008-12 strategic plan. The 30c cap will allow industry to seek future levy rate increases
within that 30c cap by amendments to the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Regulations, without any need to
amend the act, as I said.
As with other primary industry R&D corporations, AECL has taken a methodical and systematic approach to
the evaluation of the impact of R&D. The fact is that with that R&D the Australian agricultural industry in gen-
eral, but in this case the laying chicken industry in particular, meets its objectives, is on top of the game and con-
tinues to set world standards. To assist the consideration of an increase in the levy by the egg industry, it devel-
oped a compelling business case which included an independent cost-benefit analysis. That analysis provides the
strong support that the parliament needs for increasing the levy.
R&D investment through AECL has totalled in excess of $3½ million in the four years from 2003 to 2007. In-
dependent analysis of the R&D investment showed that there is demonstrable return on that investment, as indeed
did the inquiry into R&D held recently, which looked at matching levy funds between government and industry. It
showed that the Australian taxpayer is very, very well serviced by the levy, as it is by levies in the other major ag-
ricultural industries around Australia. The estimated return on egg R&D of $12.60 for every levy dollar invested is
not inconsistent with estimates from other industries. The analysis reveals that 72 per cent of the investments have
delivered benefits for egg producers and 65 per cent have also delivered outcomes to the Australian community.
That is good, and we are totally in accord with the government in wanting to see this bill go through the House so
that the changes can be implemented.
It is also timely to note that, while industry is more than pulling its weight to fund research and development in
the national interest, this government has done a real job of slashing and burning this important component of any
national food security plan in recent years. Investment in agricultural R&D at the state and federal level has
dropped dramatically. Certainly, the federal scene is not as guilty as the state in withdrawing from R&D funding,
but at the federal level the then Rudd government cut $63 million from the CSIRO agricultural research budget in
its first year in office. It abolished Land and Water Australia. It cut $12 million from the IRDC. It continues to
look hard at ways to cut funding. The recent inquiry into the level of R&D funding that the federal government
invests to match industry funding was an example of that. That inquiry recommended that 50 per cent of the cur-
rent matching dollar for dollar by government be withdrawn. The government wants to put it into what I can only
refer to as political R&D rather than productive R&D.
This concerns me greatly, because the inquiry I just mentioned showed without a doubt that the taxpayer gets
extraordinarily good value for money out of what the Commonwealth puts in through matching funds with indus-
try. If the current government wants to start political R&D—in other words, looking into climate change et cet-
era—rather than combining with industry to do productivity R&D, all well and good, but do not throw the baby
out with the bath water and take away the funding; continue to do the other. If the government wishes to go into
separate forms of research and development without industry, all well and good, but do not take away what is
working.
Mr Adams—A slightly related process.
Mr JOHN COBB—Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, I hope the member for Lyons can prevail upon his col-
leagues to see this does not happen because I am sure he knows, as I do, that it is the best money the Common-
wealth spends.

MAIN COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 113

As with other primary industry R&D corporations, and as I said, AECL took a methodical and systematic ap-
proach to the valuation of the impact of R&D investments to assist consideration of an increase in the levy by the
egg industry. They developed a compelling business case that includes an independent cost-benefit analysis, and
that analysis provides strong support for increasing the levy. Thank you.
Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (7.15 pm)—The honourable member for Calare is quite right: the levies that are collected
in this country play a very important role. But I think all of the issues he mentioned such as climate change and
productivity go together, in the sense that you cannot increase productivity without taking into consideration car-
bon and carbon footprints. It is a bit of a no-brainer. It all has to be linked together to find the best path forward.
The Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Bill 2010 consists of a measure to increase the cap on the
research and development component of the laying chicken levy from 10c to 30c per laying chicken. The Austra-
lian Egg Corporation Ltd, on behalf of the egg industry, requested that the increase to the levy rate from 10c to
13.5c be in place by 2010 so that it could meet the research and development objectives outlined in the industry’s
2008-12 strategic plan. Currently, the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999 caps the research and devel-
opment component of the laying chicken levy at 10c per laying chicken. This bill makes amendments to the act in
one area: the bill will provide for an increase in the cap on the research and development component of the laying
chicken levy from 10c to 30c per laying chicken.
The levy is imposed on laying chickens hatched at any hatchery where at least 1,000 laying chickens are
hatched in a financial year. The levy is imposed on laying chickens that are older than 48 hours after hatching. The
operators of hatcheries who produce laying hens are legally responsible for paying the levy. However, the cost of
the levy is routinely passed on to egg producers.
In May 2009, the Australian Egg Corporation Ltd, on behalf of the egg industry, provided a submission to the
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry proposing a two-step increase to the levy—initially from 7.2c to
10c and then, after 12 months, from 10c to 13.5c. The majority of egg producers supported this change. Amend-
ments to the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Regulations 1999 increased the levy rate from 7.2c to 10c from 1
December 2009. To allow for the further rise to 13.5c cents, an increase in the levy cap is required by amending
the act—hence, this amendment bill today.
Under the act, the maximum total rate of levies applying to all animal or animal products is $5 per unit. The
current levy caps for laying chickens are 10c for research and development, 33c for the Australian Animal Health
Council and 40c for the National Residue Survey. Increasing the R&D cap from 10c to 30c per laying chicken is
therefore well under the overall maximum allowable statutory cap. This will cover the proposed levy rate of 13.5c
and any further changes required in the future to account for inflation and strategic levy increases. The 30c cap
will allow industry to seek future levy rate increases by amendments to the regulations without the need to further
amend the act. The bill does not include consequential amendments to other acts. As I said, this increase will en-
able the egg industry to meet the core R&D objectives outlined in its 2008-12 strategic plan.
However, should the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Regulations 1999 be changed after the levy cap is in-
creased to establish a levy rate of 13.5c, it would result in additional government matching in the order of
$442,000 per annum. An additional contribution of more than $200,000 for the 2010-11 financial year is antici-
pated. Should the new rate come into effect from 1 December 2010, funding for this would flow from a special
appropriation outside the normal budget approval process.
This bill was introduced in the last parliament and is now looking to be adopted by this one. It will ensure that
the Australian egg industry maintains its strong tradition of being innovative and adaptive. Levies provide an ef-
fective system for funding necessary research and development. I understand that the goal of the AECL’s R&D
program is to improve efficiency, sustainability, egg quality, education and technology transfer in the Australian
egg industry.
As I said, with this legislation the Australian government is responding to a request by the AECL, on behalf of
the egg industry, to increase the R&D levy rate to 13.5c per laying chicken. The levy is currently 10c per laying
chicken, the maximum allowed under the legislation. The increased levy weight will assist the industry to expand
its R&D objectives as outlined in its 2008-12 strategic plan. The R&D objectives include improving flock health
and disease management, animal welfare and environmental sustainability. The request by the AECL followed
consultation with the industry and met the government’s levy principles and guidelines. To increase the levy rate
from 10c to 13.5c, as requested by the AECL, is a two-step process. The legislation has to be changed to increase
the maximum allowable R&D levy rate. The government has decided to increase the cap from 10c to 30c now to
cover potential future levy increases that the industry may require.
If the bill is approved by the parliament, the government will amend the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies
Regulations 1999 to increase the levy to 13.5c per laying chicken. I have been informed that the AECL considers

MAIN COMMITTEE
114 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, 19 October 2010

that, without increased levy proceeds, there will be underfunding of the R&D required to respond to the produc-
tivity and sustainability challenges faced by the industry. The AECL’s submission to the Commonwealth propos-
ing an increased levy notes that the egg industry’s current R&D often lags substantially behind that undertaken by
competing industries and other food commodities. There is an estimated return of $12.60 for every egg R&D levy
dollar.
Most of the primary industries now have to be smarter in the way that they operate. This requires research to
ensure that the industry is heading in the right direction for the future. I commend the AECL for taking the initia-
tive to levy growers to allow that work to be done to benefit all of them. The government understands this and
wants to assist other industries to help themselves through difficult times. R&D corporations need to put some
money into education especially of young people so that they understand the livestock industry in Australia; oth-
erwise, there might not be a livestock industry in the future. There is a real need for that, and the R&D corpora-
tions have lagged behind in understanding that. For a small amount, I believe we could do a lot in the education
sector.
The research priorities in this strategic plan go out to 2011. I understand from the AECL mission statement that
there are plans to develop and drive an integrated on-farm plan for chain and market services that maximises
benefits and revenue for the Australian egg industry and the community to minimise barriers and costs for Austra-
lian egg producers. The scope of these research and development operations covers the entire supply chain from
farm inputs to egg products and by-products. They say the main focus is to provide innovative on-farm solu-
tions—maybe some of that will be for the carbon footprint—and improvements in efficiency. They will also in-
clude all associated production factors which are relevant, including consumer needs and expectations, nutritional
factors, market demand, supply chain, waste management and quality control. This will allow them to try and
meet their mission statement.
This industry has a number of challenges. The most obvious and probably the most public one concerns hen
welfare. This is not an easy one for the industry, as there has been a lot of adverse publicity, some of which may
not be warranted. Certainly there were some bad operators in the system. The industry recognises that it is difficult
to objectively assess and characterise hen welfare associated with production system design. The welfare debate is
complex because of the different approaches and priorities of welfare assessment and associated beliefs of stake-
holders. Therefore, it is critical to have rigorous and peer reviewed science and communication of key research
outcomes regarding best management practice and on-farm animal husbandry available to producers.
Obviously, production that optimises hen welfare is fundamental to all effective and sustainable businesses.
Unbalanced publicity and an uncertain regulatory environment impinge on a producer’s ability to invest in or im-
prove production systems to meet consumer demands. There is a risk that changes of practice without rigorous
science will compromise hen welfare. Purely from a consumer’s point of view, I have been taking note as I shop
for eggs at my local supermarkets. People are taking a more careful approach to egg buying. I have noted at times
that people scrutinise the boxes that say ‘free range’, ‘barn reared’ or, even more weirdly, ‘organic’ and seem to be
prepared to pay more for those boxes labelled as such. As this is my research and it is anecdotal, it may not play
much of a role in decision making. It would be interesting to note if the trend went right across our nation. Is there
a change in people’s buying habits? Does this have an impact on the profits of the industry?
There are also the environmental impacts of the industry and the need to minimise the effect of waste, emis-
sions and by-products. Maybe we need to look at ways of using those products and perhaps the energy sources of
the businesses themselves. I am pleased that the bill has bipartisan support. I am sure it is good for the industry. I
support the bill.
Dr MIKE KELLY (Eden-Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (7.30
pm)—I thank the members for Calare and Lyons for their contributions—particularly the member for Lyons who
is a passionate advocate for the primary industries sector in his electorate and is passionately interested in the is-
sues concerning primary industries nationally. In my new capacity I look forward to working closely with the
member to advance the cause of primary industries.
The Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Bill 2010 amends the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies
Act 1999 to increase the maximum allowable levy rate cap on the research and development component of the
laying chickens levy from 10c to 30c per laying chicken. The proposed change is simple but provides greater
flexibility for the egg industry to invest in its research and development effort into the future, providing a positive
return for egg producers in the community. The change in the levy cap will allow for a regulation to be made to
increase the operative levy rate to 13.5c to allow the egg industry to meet the core research and development ob-
jectives outlined in its 2008-12 strategic plan. The levy increase was requested and supported by the industry. It is
a wonderful example of the cooperation between government and industry through the levy scheme to promote

MAIN COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 115

and support research and development in the primary industries sector. I thank you, Deputy Speaker Bird, and I
thank members for their contribution.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
ST MARY OF THE CROSS
Consideration resumed from 18 October.
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (7.33 pm)—I am pleased to rise to speak on this statement about the recent canoni-
sation of Mary MacKillop. In rising I acknowledge the celebrations that were held throughout Australia over the
weekend, including those in Melbourne organised by the archdiocese and the Sisters of St Joseph that I attended,
along with many thousands of other people. At the outset I also acknowledge the bipartisan approach to this and
the fact that both the government and the coalition promised in the context of the election campaign to provide
funding towards those celebrations and related events. Members of both sides of parliament attended the events in
Rome over the weekend.
The canonisation on Sunday of Mary MacKillop was an event that all Australians can celebrate, not just Catho-
lics. Men and women of every faith, and none, can rejoice in the life of this extraordinary Australian. A canonisa-
tion is not the religious equivalent of winning an individual Olympic gold medal, although many, including some
Catholics, speak of it as if it were. In an age of individualism, it is perhaps difficult to understand that Mary was
motivated by a profound commitment to community and the common good. Over the past few weeks, many
claims have been made of Mary: she was a feminist before her time; she was a rebel against a clerical church; she
was a pioneering social worker; and it has even been claimed that she was a model for the Independents in the
federal parliament!
Mary MacKillop was a gifted woman; a strong-willed and determined leader; a builder of schools, homes for
the poor and congregations. But she was more than all those characterisations. Her long-running disputes with
various bishops have been well rehearsed in recent weeks. It was real and painful for her, but she was no rebel.
She always accepted the authority of the church hierarchy, praying constantly that the work of her sisters would be
able to prosper. Her prayerful perseverance was rewarded, as previous decisions were reversed, including her ex-
communication. At her passing, Archbishop Moran observed:
Today I believe I have assisted at the death bed of a Saint.
Mary was an immensely practical woman. Her sisters, young women in their late teens and twenties, left the cities
for the hardship of small towns and rural communities in the century before last. Preparing them for the task was
uppermost in Mary’s mind. They, she said, ‘must be trained spiritually and in the worldly knowledge necessary to
enable them to take the stand the church in Australia requires of them.’ The work not only included teaching in the
schools she founded and caring for the poor and homeless but begging when necessary for the funds to live on.
Her practical Christianity attracted support from Catholics and non-Catholics alike. While motivated by faith, she
was also a woman of the world. When women gained the right to vote and to be elected to parliament she encour-
aged her congregation to participate. She wrote to her sisters in 1903:
It is the duty of all of us to vote. Find out who are the members proposed for election and vote for those who are considered
most friendly to the church and to religion. Every so called Catholic is not the best man.
We can learn from Mary MacKillop that clear vision, perseverance and determination will overcome obstacles,
but most of all we can learn that faith is not a relic. To claim Mary for some current political cause is to miss the
essential meaning of her life. She was motivated through her love of Christ to bring about a better future for hun-
dreds of thousands of Australians. In an era that often seems besotted by vice, she reminds us that hope and cour-
age are enduring virtues. In 50 years, the small school she founded in 1866 at Penola with Father Julian Woods
had grown to 106 houses, 12 institutions sheltering more than 1,000 people at a time, and 117 schools with more
than 12,000 pupils. Her life was an exemplar of the call to ‘love one another as I have loved you’.
A few weeks before her death in 1909, having previously suffered a stroke, Mary wrote:
Whatever troubles may be before you, accept them cheerfully, remembering whom you are trying to follow. Do not be
afraid. Love one another, bear with one another, and let charity guide you in all your life.
It is a fitting epitaph and a worthy commendation for us all.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (7.38 pm)—I rise on indulgence to speak from this side of the chamber in support of
the remarks of the Prime Minister regarding the canonisation of Mary MacKillop. It is certainly humbling for a
simple bloke to follow in the trailblazing wake of a wonderful, inspirational woman. I started in grade 1 in 1971
and went through to 1977 at a Josephite school, and I think that every day we would have said a prayer for the

MAIN COMMITTEE
116 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, 19 October 2010

canonisation of Mary MacKillop. St Mary of the Cross is a true Australian hero for people who attended Josephite
schools, for Catholics and, it seems—from the celebrations on the weekend—for all Australians, even the atheists.
She is a hero not just for people of Catholic faith or even the broader Christian community but for every Austra-
lian.
St Mary’s story captures something at the core of the Australian spirit particularly because she had a heart for
the bush, which is such an important part of the Australian identity, because she hated poverty and inequality, and
perhaps also—with all respect to you, Mr Deputy Speaker—because she had a healthy disrespect for authority.
That is an Australian trait that is usually an endearing trait. I think that even the Pope was tolerant of Australians
not necessarily respecting all of the rules put down by the Vatican when it came to announcing the canonisation.
St Mary of the Cross chose to live a life of poverty in order to bring hope and opportunity to thousands of Aus-
tralians, and her legacy continues to do so today. St Mary founded the Sisters of St Joseph of the Sacred Heart, an
order dedicated to educating the poor, particularly in the bush, where I am from. Because of that commitment to
the bush, she had a particular influence on many Indigenous Australians. The Sisters of St Joseph was the first
religious order to be founded by an Australian, and they committed themselves to poverty, to divine provision, to
no ownership of personal belongings, and to go wherever they were needed. And let us look at some of the places
where they were needed. I will speak particularly about Queensland, although I know there are other states that
have their claim. I speak about places like Allora, Clermont, Mackay and Pittsworth, and the school I attended, St
Patrick’s in St George.
Today we live in an age when so much of life is about looking out for No. 1; but St Mary MacKillop was dif-
ferent. Her life was about putting others first. She put aside the usual prejudices and became poor to serve the
poor—a truly great commitment. In doing so, she gave hope to the forgotten peoples of her generation and she
continues to inspire and guide a new generation today. Mary MacKillop opened the first Josephite school in South
Australia in 1867, and by 1871 there were 130 sisters serving in more than 40 schools and welfare centres in
South Australia and Queensland. As a kid growing up in St George in rural Queensland, I attended St Patrick’s
Convent, a school founded by the Josephites. As I mentioned, every day we prayed to Mary MacKillop. St Pat-
rick’s Convent was established after her death, but her legacy was strong then and continues in St Patrick’s to this
day.
Mary MacKillop gave country kids like me a chance at education. Just a few years ago I attended the 75th reun-
ion of St Patrick’s—I was the MC, with Sister Mary—and the school community is still going strong. Not only
did Mary MacKillop understand the value in educating the poor; the Josephites also ran an orphanage, they res-
cued neglected children and girls at risk, and they cared for the aged, the poor and the terminally ill.
St Mary was a true pioneer for social justice and welfare in Australia. I lightly touch on the fact that some of
these things are Labor values in terms of valuing education, valuing social justice. The Australian political system
has a healthy separation of church and state, but that does not mean that the church does not have a vital role to
play. Obviously we do not want a ballot box sitting in the shadow of a pulpit; nevertheless, it is the church’s role
to stand in the margins and advocate on behalf of the voiceless and the oppressed, to stand up for those who can-
not stand on their own. That is what a good church does.
I know that there are some who flinch when the church enters the political debate. Whilst people of faith should
be guided by their religion rather than controlled by their religion—that is certainly my position—I do recognise
that we need the church to continue to shine a light on injustice and inequity in our society and around the world:
like the plight of refugees, like advancing the Millennium Development Goals, like child safety, like recognising
the poor treatment of our own Indigenous people. This is the role of a strong church, just as St Mary of the Cross
shone a light on poverty, education and care for the sick nearly 150 years ago. When people talk about our Judeo-
Christian heritage, this is what they mean.
St Mary MacKillop understood what it is to loose the chains of injustice and set the oppressed free. She pio-
neered social justice and she did so with no motive other than compassion. When she came up against the male
church hierarchy, she stood her ground at a time when that was not often done, and she did so on behalf of those
she served: the poor, the people in the bush and the Indigenous. When called on to compromise the values of the
Sisters of St Joseph of the Sacred Heart, as she was expected to, like a good nun, she refused and she was excom-
municated for her trouble. It was not long, though, before she was welcomed back to the fold and continued her
good work. Travelling to Rome, she received Papal approval for the Sisters of St Joseph and travelled throughout
Europe, where she studied educational methods, collected resources and recruited nuns and priests.
The Josephites continued to thrive, opening more schools in South Australia, New South Wales, Queensland
and New Zealand. All the while Mary MacKillop faced opposition from priests and bishops, and poor health of
her own, but nothing would stop her good work. Today her faith in good works has stood the test of time. The Sis-

MAIN COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 117

ters of Saint Joseph continue their work and bring hope to many in Australia, New Zealand, East Timor, Ireland,
Peru and Brazil. And they bring hope to many schools in my electorate of Moreton: St Brendan’s at Moorooka,
with principal Stephen Johnson; Our Lady of Fatima at Acacia Ridge, with principal Martyn Savage; St Pius X at
Salisbury, with principal Allison Malouf; Our Lady’s College at Annerley, with principal Claire McLaren; St
Sebastian’s at Yeronga, with principal Kerry Weber; our Lady of Lourdes at Sunnybank, with principal Gerry de
Ruyter; and Clairvaux MacKillop College, which was formerly MacKillop College for girls, at Upper Mount Gra-
vatt, with principal Laura Keating.
As Mary MacKillop’s extraordinary life and legacy are recognised through her canonisation, we are all chal-
lenged to reflect on how we respond to the needs of those around us. As Mary MacKillop used to say, ‘Never see a
need without doing something about it.’
Ms GAMBARO (Gambaro) (7.45 pm)—On indulgence: it is with very great pleasure that I speak today on the
canonisation of sister Mary MacKillop. Some hundreds of pilgrims in Brisbane gathered at St Stephen’s Cathedral
on Sunday, where Mary MacKillop practised her religion more than 140 years ago. She is indeed a remarkable
woman, and many of the speakers before me have mentioned her dedication to the poor, those who suffered and
those in rural communities. She was born in Fitzroy, Victoria, in 1842 and was educated at a private school in
Fitzroy and by her father. She received her first Holy Communion in 1850 at the age of eight.
She started work at a very young age as a clerk in Melbourne and later became a teacher in Portland. Because
her family were of very poor circumstances, she took a job as a governess in 1860 at her aunt and uncle’s farm at
Penola in South Australia, where she looked after and taught their children. As if that were not enough, she taught
the other farm children on the Cameron estate as well. During this time, her work brought her in contact with Fa-
ther Woods, who had been the parish priest in the south-east since his ordination in 1857. MacKillop stayed for
two years with the Camerons of Penola before she accepted a teaching job. She taught in Portland in Victoria in
1862. Father Woods was very concerned about the lack of education in South Australia, particularly the lack of
good Catholic education, so in 1866 he invited MacKillop and her sisters Annie and Lexie to come to Penola to
open up a Catholic school. They started from very humble beginnings and opened up in a stable. After a bit of
renovation by their brother, the MacKillops started teaching more than 50 children. At this time Mary made a dec-
laration of her dedication to God, and she began by wearing black.
In 1867 MacKillop was the first sister and mother superior of the newly formed Order of the Sisters of Saint
Joseph of the Sacred Heart, and she moved to a new convent in Adelaide. The same year, at the age of 25, she
adopted the religious name of Sister Mary of the Cross. Many people have spoken about the history of Mary
MacKillop and the sisters and their endeavours, particularly about the fact that there was no ownership of personal
belongings, their faith that God would provide for them and their emphasis on poverty and helping others.
Everyone in Australia at the moment has a link to Mary MacKillop. It is befitting that I mention the Queensland
link, because she did serve for a time in Queensland. She arrived in Queensland on 31 December 1869 after an
invitation from Brisbane’s first Catholic Bishop, James Quinn. She was one of five sisters of St Joseph who rented
a house in South Brisbane. They rented a house in Tribune Street, but the house was so very small that they then
moved to a hotel in Montague Street, South Brisbane. In 1870 they opened up three schools in Brisbane for poor
children and another school in Maryborough. During her time in Brisbane, MacKillop was the head teacher at St
Mary’s School in South Brisbane, before she returned to Adelaide in April 1871. It is befitting to mention her leg-
acy in Queensland, and the previous speaker, the member for Moreton, spoke about the number of schools that
were set up, including the one that I just mentioned in South Brisbane. There were a number of schools throughout
Brisbane and in country areas like Claremont, Rockhampton, Ipswich, Mackay, Allora and Pittsworth.
Mary MacKillop made a number of trips to Brisbane and Queensland in her life, establishing schools, convents
and orphanages. She was a strong-willed woman, and there is no doubt that she had altercations with the church.
That caused her to be asked to leave Brisbane by the mid-1800s by Bishop James Quinn. But the sisters did even-
tually return and they set up more schools.
I would like to place on record some insights from some of the pilgrims who gathered at St Stephens. There
were many pilgrims who came to celebrate this very special day. They include a teacher, Karen Mulcahy, who,
with her parents, Del and Ben Mulcahy, travelled from Lismore to participate at the celebrations at St Stephens.
Ms Mulcahy said, ‘There is still a strong connection’—with Mary MacKillop—‘in the education system.’ She
said, ‘The “down-to-earth” connection with teachers in the catholic education section is Sister Mary MacKillop’s
legacy to modern Australia.’ She said that, working as a teacher, she had the privilege of having her first posting
with the Josephite sisters. ‘I just loved working with them,’ she said. ‘I loved their down-to-earth hospitality. Their
genuine sense of real integrity. Putting money where their mouth is.’ Miss Mulcahy believes that this is Mary
MacKillop’s gift to Australia. Ms Mulcahy said:

MAIN COMMITTEE
118 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, 19 October 2010

For modern Australia it is great because she stood up for what she believed in, she didn’t just go along because that was the
right thing to do.
She actually challenged what was going on around her and I think that sense of spirit is something that we can associate with
whether we are religious or not.
It is a great privilege to have Mary MacKillop canonised, and I want to end with the words of Father Ken Howell
of St Stephens Cathedral, who said:
It’s a first for Australia and it’s a significant moment in the history of our country because now canonised saints are from here,
one of our own.
Ms HALL (Shortland) (7.52 pm)—On indulgence: this is a really unusual subject for me to speak on since I
am not a Catholic or even a very religious person, but I would like to acknowledge a fine woman who made an
enormous contribution not only to Australia and the Catholic Church but also to how a person should live their
life. Mary MacKillop was an exceptional woman who achieved so much at a time when women found it very dif-
ficult to achieve things on the scale that she did. She was principled, and she was highly committed to her com-
munity and to the most disadvantaged people in the community. She was a pioneer in social justice. She was com-
passionate, she was caring, she was an activist and she recognised how important education was for all people.
She challenged ideas and the traditional approach to handling issues in the community.
The simple fact that she was so committed to those people really disadvantaged in the community makes it
even more special for me that Kathleen Evans—the grandmother whose cure from inoperable brain and lung can-
cer was the miracle which was performed—came from Windale within the electorate of Shortland. It is a very dis-
advantaged area and I think it really goes together with the type of person Mary MacKillop was. Kathleen Evans
is somebody from a disadvantaged community who prayed while holding a piece of cloth from Mary MacKillop’s
nightie and she was able to recover from those incurable cancers. If my reading of Mary MacKillop is correct, I
think that would be very special for her.
I also want to mention the Josephite order. I have some exposure to the Josephite order because my daughter-
in-law has three aunties who are all Josephite nuns. They are women who are committed to education and who
take their vow of poverty very seriously. They have done the most incredible things in their lives, such as teaching
very disadvantaged people in China when it was not the country it is today and when the doors to China were
closed. These women were able to make their commitments to their various communities because of the Josephite
order. It is an order that was founded by Mary and which stands for the values that everyone in this parliament
would be committed to.
I feel quite humble in speaking on this subject. I am particularly humble as I am not a person of this particular
faith, but I do recognise this exceptional woman who gave so much not only to Australia but to the world. I think
it is a very proud day for Australia, particularly for all those of the Catholic faith.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (7.57 pm)—On indulgence: Patrick O’Sullivan, the head of the Jesuits for Australasia
and whose father, Sir Neil O’Sullivan, was the leader of the Senate, addressed a large conference in Brisbane and
said that Mount Carmel school was successfully getting the Christian message and achieving what we want to
achieve in Catholic education in Australia. In discussing this recently with Tony Chappell, a long-serving Chris-
tian brother, I said that St Vincent de Paul at the University of Queensland was run by a Mount Carmel boy, the
YCW was run by a Mount Carmel boy and the Newman Society was run by a Mount Carmel boy and his girl-
friend, who later became his wife. I said that all of the organisations at this huge university were run by people
from that small Mount Carmel school. Tony Chappell said, ‘They were not from Mount Carmel; they were from
Cloncurry, and it was Sister Thomas.’ I thought about it afterwards and he was right. I have diligently watched the
television coverage of Mary MacKillop’s canonisation and all I found out was that she had a lot of fights with
bishops. I was deeply disappointed because I did not think it got any sort of message across at all. I watched three
separate programs I was that interested in finding out about her.
I have never had any doubt in my mind since I first heard of Mary MacKillop 40 or 50 years ago that Sister
Thomas was Mother Mary MacKillop revisited, and she is the lady I am talking about here. I tried to put my fin-
ger on her characteristics. I tried to remember what I could of Sister Thomas. I can remember my mother saying:
‘Oh, isn’t it wonderful that Sister Thomas is coming to Cloncurry. She’s a very famous lady. She’s a very famous
educator.’ One of the things I remember is that if you went to mass every morning during Lent you got a holy card
with lace edged on it, and I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that some of the roughest kids got that holy card
because she had inculcated in them this great Christian faith, this great belief. She also told us that, if we were not
able to get up early in the morning because it was too cold, we were sooks and that we should be wrapped in cot-
ton wool. Cloncurry boys do not like to be told that they are sooks, which also helped us to get out of bed to go to
mass during Lent.

MAIN COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 119

She told us in very great detail about the miracles of many of the saints. She told us in such a way that you
would never doubt for one moment that those miracles had taken place. She told us that God could do anything,
that you could pray and God could do anything. She was a good example of God doing anything. She was the
hand of God, looking back on it. Bobby Glass, who was just below me at the Cloncurry Convent School, topped
the state in the scholarship exam, which was in the eighth grade. In those days in Queensland you had to pass the
scholarship exam or you were not allowed to go on to secondary school. If you got a good pass you got a govern-
ment scholarship which helped you to go away to boarding school, because we did not have any local high school
in Cloncurry.
In all her years of teaching this remarkable lady had never had a single student fail scholarship. The failure
rates were about 30 or 40 per cent, and we were kids from very rough backgrounds in Cloncurry. I think it was
there that I learned to fight very young because I was the only kid sent to school wearing shoes. It was a fast way
to learn how to fight. As to her characteristics, yes, she was very liberal with the cane, and I was most certainly on
the receiving end of it on many occasions.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr KATTER—Yes, I was waiting for you to say that it did not work. She forced all of us in the eighth grade
to stay back studying until five o’clock in the afternoon. She stayed there with us, supervising. She had thousands
of cards and she had very elementary ways of teaching mathematics. Even the greatest numbskull could under-
stand mathematics with the little cards that she had been handing out for, I suppose, 15 or 20 years. During the
athletics and football carnivals in which we played the state school, which was four times our size and which we
would regularly beat, she would be in the sisters’ car with her rosary beads, praying throughout the football
matches and athletics carnivals.
I think the thing I probably most remember was that she said in every religious speech she ever gave: ‘Now,
Children, remember that he who laughs last laughs best. We’re all going to die and those that have gone to church
and done the right thing in life will go to heaven.’ She also told us, which was rare in those days, ‘There are evil
people in this world.’ She said: ‘There was a boy at my school in Winton and he skited after he left school that,
within three years of leaving school, he had 15 notches on his gun.’ He had shot 15 Aboriginal people. She told us
that there were evil people in the world.
I think this is where the Australian bit came in. I do not know of any other schools that did this. We sang God
save the Queen, but she is an English person and I do not think that was very Australian, but with the St Joseph’s
nuns we stood under the flag every morning of our school lives and we sang:
God bless our lovely morning land. God keep her with his enfolding hand, Australia. Whilst distant booms the battle’s roar
from out some rude, barbaric shore, on earth there is no other land like our own shining southern land, our own dear home,
our motherland, Australia.
Every single kid who went through a St Joseph’s school was imbued with a deep love not of England but of Aus-
tralia. We were brought up to be patriotic Australians.
My father said on many occasions, ‘Who are the happiest people that we know?’ We lived in Cloncurry and did
not go much outside Cloncurry. I knew he was referring to the nuns, and the St Joseph’s nuns in Cloncurry were
the happiest people that I knew of by a long way. Whatever they had, it made them very happy. At church on Sun-
day, Father Alan Sheldrick, a man very gifted with a deep Christian faith and Christian commitment—and I use
the word ‘Christian’ rather than ‘Catholic’ not to denigrate in any way but to delineate to you the man he is—said:
‘After the war I used to have to go on my bike on Sunday. We had two meals that we prepared—one for our own
family and one for the nuns.’ He said, ‘I used to peddle on my bike and take the meal down to the nuns on Sun-
day.’ He told us, ‘Many years later when I became a Catholic priest, one of the nuns told me that one week when
they had received that meal it was the only hot meal and meal containing meat that they were able to purchase that
week.’ They had virtually no food and they were very hungry, and she remembered how deeply she had appreci-
ated Alan Sheldrick carrying that food to them. So these are people who actually went hungry to deliver us an
education that ensured that every single one of us passed our scholarship exam and that every single one of us
performed, if we had the abilities, to a point where we would all get Commonwealth scholarships and be able to
go on to secondary school. Finally, I have written only a couple of poems in my life. I am not very good at writing
poems but I wrote this little one, which is really about my own upbringing in Cloncurry:
Bury me please beside Uncle Bert
back in the ‘Curry
the place that I love
I will not be far from an old dusty grandstand
that I once made ring with the shouts for the Tigers with my mates and my team

MAIN COMMITTEE
120 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, 19 October 2010

though I remember the dust and flies

most of all I remember a kid who was bullied by boys who were shoeless and tough
and of the mates who stuck by him till he was as tough as the rest
the tough little kid of the west
most of all I remember the little white nuns—
and they have changed their habit from white, in those days, to brown—
who gave me my god.
That is my final tribute to the people who educated me.
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (8.07 pm)—On indulgence: for those of us who follow the Catholic faith, I must say I am
proud and awed by the canonisation of Mary MacKillop, Australia’s first saint. Over the past few weeks, like oth-
ers, I have read a lot about Mary MacKillop and her commitment to education, particularly of the poor. I have
read about the two miracles she performed, curing two grandmothers—Kathleen Evans and Veronica Hopson—of
their terminal cancer. I have read about the long campaign to have Mary MacKillop declared a saint and watched
the celebrations in the Vatican on Sunday when Mary MacKillop was canonised as St Mary of the Cross. What
people may not have read about however are the individual stories of the communities right across Australia that
have been impacted by this event. Their faith and their sense of Christian identity have been impacted.
On Sunday, I had the privilege of attending the inaugural blessing of the stations of the cross at the Marian pil-
grimage centre in Bringelly. More than 6,000 people gathered together for the unveiling of 14 exquisite life-size
sculptures of the stations of the cross. These sculptures were beautifully created by the sculptor, Phan Chi Lang.
They will be a location for pilgrimage for many Christians not only in Western Sydney but also within our greater
community. The followers who gathered there on Sunday celebrated mass with Bishop Julian Porteous in honour
of Mary MacKillop and her impending canonisation. There was a sense of excitement about Australia’s first saint.
However what stood out for me at the time was the sense of pride in the congregation. This was an opportunity for
followers of the Catholic faith in Australia to stand proud as one of their own joined the prestigious ranks of the
holy group and was entered in the Book of Saints.
It was also time for reflection on what Mary MacKillop stood for and why she should be revered as an example
of not only Catholic life but also Australian life. At her core, Mary MacKillop was a generous and compassionate
woman. She showed absolute dedication to her beliefs as well as assisting those less fortunate in the community.
Mary MacKillop had an extraordinary capacity to forgive. I doubt whether she would have survived in this place.
I am not sure whether we have the capacity she showed. During her life she was accused of many things from
fraudulent dealings to drunkenness, things that ordinarily in a modern society people might go rushing off to a
solicitor in the hope of bringing defamation proceedings. But this woman copped that sort of treatment over 130
years ago. In fact, the Bishop of Adelaide moved for her excommunication from the Catholic Church. For a
Catholic that would have to be the most grievous punishment that could be inflicted. Not only did she cop it; she
fought it and she won. She stood up for what she believed in regardless of who was telling her what she should
believe and how she should act. She forgave those people, including the bishop, as I understand it, and she en-
couraged others to forgive as well. In 1909, shortly before her death, Mary MacKillop wrote:
Whenever troubles may be before you, accept them cheerfully, remembering whom you are trying to follow.
I cannot think of a better role model. I would be seen to be lacking that kind of spirit. She was able to bear a large
amount of suffering and humiliation, and press on with what she set out to do which was to educate the young and
the underprivileged. I think it is marvellous that this young woman did that at that time. Of course, Mary MacKil-
lop’s most well-known achievement was the establishment of the Sisters of Saint Joseph of the Sacred Heart and
the schools that her order started. Also what is less well known is what she did with respect to disadvantaged peo-
ple in the community. She started the school at Penola in South Australia.
The Josephites offered crucial education to those who would otherwise not have had a chance to attend school.
I did not have to read much about that because Bernadette’s Aunty Gladys—some knew her as Sister Paul-
Maria—was a Josephite. I have learnt from my in-laws about the practice of the Josephites and that Mary MacKil-
lop is still very much revered by the sisters today. I learnt that this young woman, at the age of 25, started this or-
der. I would not even hazard a guess as to the number of schools that they started—I am sure someone will put
that number on the record when talking about Mary MacKillop. It is almost miraculous in itself that a young per-
son of 25 who was in poor health and did not have the support of the local clergy went ahead and made such a
successful contribution to Catholic education in this country. Through her insistence, they tutored pupils not only
in the Catholic faith but also in life skills, literacy and adding up—like the adding up of grocery bills. The sisters
hoped these skills would help students in all stations of their lives. This is a fitting philosophy that should always
be remembered when it comes to the education of our youth.

MAIN COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 121

During the celebrations at the Marian pilgrimage centre, which I mentioned earlier, tribute was also paid to an-
other Mary: Our Lady of La Vang. Most people throughout the world, whether or not they are Christians, would
know that Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ. But to the Vietnamese community in the south-west of Sydney,
and probably throughout the world, Mary holds a very special significance. They refer to her as Our Lady of La
Vang. Following the fall of Saigon, 35 years ago, a wave of refugees fled their homeland in Vietnam. Many of
them escaped by boat. We now refer to them as our first boat people. They prayed to Our Lady of La Vang as they
fled on boats. They asked her to keep them safe during their perilous journey. Thankfully, many of the refugees
who fled to Australia were kept safe and are now flourishing in their new home where, I must say, they are making
a remarkable contribution. The Vietnamese community revere Mary as the patron saint of refugees escaping by
sea, so she could probably be regarded the patron saint of boat people.
It was an honour to pay tribute to our Lady of La Vang on Sunday with members of the local Vietnamese
Catholic community. It was very fitting that we celebrated their St Mary on the day that Mary MacKillop was
canonised. I take this opportunity to thank the Australian-Vietnamese Catholic community and their chair, Mr
Hoan Van Giang, for their kind invitation to celebrate with them on Sunday. It was certainly an honour to be part
of such a reverent commemoration. It certainly lays a foundation not only for the Catholic community of Western
Sydney but for the broader community that, when we look to people to set the yardstick for behaviour, we now
have one of our own, our first saint, Mary MacKillop.
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (8.17 pm)—On indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I join my colleagues tonight to
speak on our first saint in Australia, St Mary of the Cross. Last Friday I had the great privilege of attending the
125th anniversary of St Joachim’s Primary School at Lidcombe, a St Joseph’s school that was established 125
years ago by Mary MacKillop. The motto of the school is ‘Honour, Virtue, Courage, Effort’, and in the spirit of
Mary MacKillop St Joachim’s Primary School at Lidcombe is committed to ‘creating an environment in which
every person is encouraged to fulfil their potential’, ‘being a supportive, true and living Catholic community that
witnesses the values of the gospel’ and ‘being a multicultural community of families which nurtures, accepts and
supports each of its individual members’. I am sure Mary MacKillop would have been very proud of the Principal,
Ms Pam Dickens, and the local parish priest, Father David Vaughan, for his celebration of the Eucharist and his
engagement with the young Australians who have the benefit of a great Catholic education that had its origins 125
years ago.
Mary MacKillop, as we all know, was an extraordinary woman. Today we would probably say she is a great
Australian. Born in Melbourne in 1842, Mary MacKillop went out to work at the age of 16 to support her young
brothers and sisters in the local town of Penola, where she met Father Julian Woods. He was the local parish priest
and had a great influence on her in promoting her mission for education, and I am personally very grateful for that
mission. Although Mary is best remembered for her work in establishing many schools, she also established hos-
pitals, orphanages and shelters for the homeless and for unmarried mothers. Clearly she worked for those who
were the most disadvantaged members of our community. I had my primary school education at the hands of the
St Joseph’s nuns and I am grateful for that education. I well remember Sister Augustine and I well remember her
sizzling cane. I well remember Sister Dominic and Sister Angela and I have particularly fond memories of Sister
Christina, who was my music teacher and had a great influence on my early love and development of music. She
taught me how to play the Blue Danube and I will be forever grateful for that.
I am also grateful that my best friend, Tom Travers, who worked for my father in the local law practice in Dun-
edoo, also had a sister he dearly loved, Sister Fidelma, who was also a St Joseph’s nun. She was quite a character.
She was a great musician, a tremendous pianist, and she too had a great influence on my life. Clearly, the life of
Mary MacKillop was monumentally virtuous and monumentally heroic. The member for Shortland in her contri-
bution almost apologised that she was not a Catholic. All of us know that that does not matter because Mary
MacKillop was a person for all Australians. If anyone ever set an example of doing something to help the most
disadvantaged people in Australia, surely it was St Mary of the Cross.
So, like all of us here tonight, we were very proud last Sunday to see her acknowledged with the ultimate acco-
lade of being pronounced Australia’s first saint, and justifiably so. That was a great occasion and let us hope for all
Australians, whether they are devout Catholics or whether they have absolutely no faith at all, that the heroic life
that St Mary MacKillop led inspires them to fulfil their hopes, dreams and aspirations in life and that she is for-
ever a source of love and encouragement for us all. God bless Mary MacKillop.
Ms O’NEILL (Robertson) (8.23 pm)—On indulgence: I too am feeling quite blessed to be here tonight to
speak on the canonisation of Mary MacKillop. As a teacher of proud Catholic roots, to be able to join with other
members of the House in marking the birth and recognition of our first Australian saint is a great honour. This is a
great time for Australian Catholics and I have been humbled by the well wishes of people from other faiths and
indeed from people without a faith who simply have wished us Catholics well in our celebrations.

MAIN COMMITTEE
122 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, 19 October 2010

There is so much that is universal and admirable in the life St Mary of the Cross. Her inspirational life has been
well documented over recent days, as it has in this chamber and in the House in recent days as well. She was a
woman of incredible faith and a woman of great courage. She was a great teacher and a great leader with a burn-
ing passion for social justice. She stood up to bullying authority. It is becoming apparent that she knew how to
lobby as well and to persevere. St Mary’s work touched many people in her lifetime and beyond. In fact, many of
the Josephite girls that I have known who live on the Central Coast have said to me that one thing they recall from
their years of study at St Joseph’s at East Gosford is the statement from Mary that you should never see a need
without doing something about it.
I turn in my remarks now to a reflection on Mary’s influence in the seat of Robertson. Mary MacKillop actually
arrived in the seat of Robertson in 1887 at a beautiful place not very far from where we live in Bensville. She and
several other sisters arrived by ferry at Kincumber with 22 homeless boys in March of that year. It is said that the
community was established fairly quickly and they certainly were very industrious. One of the most longstanding
stories concerns a boy named Philip O’Brien, who was extremely ill at age 15. He had such affection for Mary
MacKillop that he asked for her as he was dying at Kincumber. I am sure that Mary was very caught up in many
other works but she travelled from Sydney—which was no small journey in those days, the last part of which was
by ferry to the orphanage at Kincumber—to be at Philip’s side to comfort him in his final hours.
One of the things I have spoken about in this House is the beauty of the area in which we live. I can actually see
the orphanage at Kincumber from our home at Bensville. Each day when we get up and look over the mangroves
to Brisbane Water, not far off to the right over the oyster leases that sit in Cockle Bay we see a Celtic cross on the
Holy Cross Church and we also see the orphanage, which now operates as a Josephite spirituality centre. There
are a number of really important old buildings on the site and if any of the members here or people from other
areas of Australia come to visit Robertson they will be able to take a tour and see the first brick building that was
erected there in 1900 and formed the schoolrooms for the children to learn in. Very interestingly, there is a swim-
ming pool there and a water tank. This was built to make sure that the whole place was completely self-sustaining.
So she was not only a woman of vision in terms of education, she also had a sustainability angle, which was very
sensible. The sewerage and septic systems were installed along with electric light, as Mary MacKillop and the
people who followed her made sure that the care of the young men who ended up in that orphanage was taken on
very well.
One of the great joys of living in Kincumber has been the picnics we have had with our parish on the grounds
of the orphanage. John Smith is a gentleman who came into our lives and is a deacon in our parish. You may have
seen a story in the weekend’s edition of the Sun Herald in which he shared his story of being an orphan. John
Smith is actually the deacon who attended each of our children’s baptisms and he is a regular parishioner at Holy
Cross Church where we attend. Mr Smith had this to say:
The nuns were my parents. I never saw my mother in my life. I’ve never even seen a picture of her and I don’t know where
my dad is. The sisters are the only mother I ever knew.
I have brothers and sisters who live up here but I haven’t seen them. I might be a twin.
… … …
It was tops growing up here … A lot of old boys have come back over the years.’
Mr Smith said that he ‘felt good’ about the canonisation, as many of us do, and declared that:
[Mary] deserves it, there’s no doubt about that. What she’s done for Australia is unbelievable.
Apart from the orphanage that we see at Kincumber, there is a local school that the Josephites have established. It
provides great Catholic education for girls on the Central Coast. It is diocesan school and it serves all of the com-
munities from the parishes of East Gosford, Mangrove Mountain, Kincumber, North Gosford, Wyoming, Terrigal,
Erina, Woy Woy and Umina. For those of us who know where the Donnison Street entrance to the Union Hotel
is—it is a car park these days—apparently that was the site on which the school was established. It then moved to
East Gosford, not far from the current site of the secondary school that continues to offer this profound education
in which young women are taught to follow the college motto, which was established from a reading of Micah: to
act justly, to love tenderly and walk humbly with your God. Certainly those qualities of just action, tender loving
and humility are things we have heard about Mary MacKillop in the last few weeks.
The current principal is Stephen Walsh. I had the pleasure of going to the school during the most recent cam-
paign with Simon Crean to have a look at the developments that are underway there. I think Mary was a visionary
for the future and at that school there is still a sense of really making sure that there are the very best opportunities
for young people to be educated in things that they are passionate about. We have heard the member for Kennedy
speaking about the influence of a Josephite education in enabling him as to his life—and, yes, we did hear about
the cane but I cannot tell you that that has been the experience that I have heard about to do with the Josephite

MAIN COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 123

sisters. These are the words that the college articulate as to what they are trying to do at St Joseph’s and I think
they epitomise what Mary MacKillop and her story tell us as Australians:
Much of what we are trying to do at St. Joseph’s is related to the development in our community of the spirit of Mary MacKil-
lop.
Hers was a uniquely Australian spirituality of a lay woman whose tremendous faith gave her a clear vision of how to minister
to the needs of Australians in those difficult days of settlement.
Her single-mindedness in making education available for poor children, rather than the relatively better off town and country
children, brought her, at times, into conflict with the institutional Church. She wanted to see her sisters ‘up country’ in twos
and threes serving small communities and living in solidarity with them. In this sense, the Josephites took the Church to where
the people were.
There is a real pride developing amongst the girls at St. Joseph’s belonging to a Josephite school where the name and works of
Mary MacKillop—
now St Mary of the Cross—
are honoured. In our curriculum and in our awareness of the needs of the community in which we live, we try to carry on in
the spirit of Mary MacKillop. Many girls—
at St Joseph’s—
work ... in school service in ways as diverse as counting the newsletters and covering books—
and serving the local community. Also:
Our students and their families generously support a number of charitable appeals throughout the year. Many of the students
commit themselves to service to the local, national and global communities through a variety of social justice initiatives.
One of the important things that the canonisation of St Mary of the Cross, our Mary MacKillop, has liberated in
the public space is a recognition of the place of faith and spirituality in the current lives of ordinary Australians. It
also reminds us of the place of faith in the Catholic Australian tradition that was instrumental in providing educa-
tion to many Australians who were likely to miss out on receiving it. The schools today of Mary MacKillop, St
Mary of the Cross, carry on her founding mission: to relieve suffering and to bring hope in today’s world. These
are such Australian aspirations. In the mission of St Joseph’s College we see Mary’s inspiration. Today, in my seat
of Robertson, men and women are working together to help form young women who will act justly, giving them a
Catholic view of the world, enabling them to learn the highest standards achievable within a nurturing community,
creating authentic relationships based on Gospel values, empowering them to make a difference in the world in
the spirit of Mary MacKillop. The values they articulate are friendship, truth, respect, forgiveness, justice, love,
compassion and hope. They are ones that the Josephite community are sharing with all Australians at this time.
Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon) (8.33 pm)—I rise in this place to reflect for a moment upon the extraordinary
contribution made to this nation by an extraordinary Australian woman, St Mary of the Cross MacKillop. Mary
sought to serve and the last thing she would have ever imagined and probably the last thing she would have ever
wanted is to be declared a saint. But, a saint she is. Mary is a saint, formally and theologically, in the Catholic
Church. She was and is a secular ‘saint’ for the many thousands of people touched by her work and presence in
days gone by and those many people inspired by her life and works today—and one of those is me as I got to
know this tremendous woman’s story, which is truly inspirational. To paraphrase the philosopher and non-believer,
Hannah Arendt, perhaps the true greatness of Mary MacKillop for us is and will be that we sense behind her mar-
vellous work someone who remains greater and more mysterious, because her works point to a person whose es-
sence can neither be exhausted nor fully revealed by what it is that she has done.
‘Heroic’, ‘holy’ and ‘infused with moral courage’ are descriptors which in part reveal facets of Mary MacKillop
but fail to provide a satisfactory explanation of who Mary was. The events of Mary’s life are indeed extraordinary.
Born on 15 January 1842 in Fitzroy in Melbourne, a city then less than eight years old, Mary was the eldest of
eight children of Scottish immigrants, Alexander and Flora MacKillop. Alexander was an intelligent man but not a
good provider and Mary’s family, we understand, struggled, with relatives often providing shelter and a home and
other much-needed resources. Consequently, Mary commenced working at an early age, first in a stationery store,
then as a teacher and later as a governess to cousins in the south-east of South Australia.
Apparently she was a fine horsewoman, loved nature and had a great affection for her family. In all this, Mary
dreamed of becoming a nun but put her dream aside to help support her family. As a governess, Mary observed
that there was little or no education for rural children and especially for Catholic children. In a watershed relation-
ship, Mary met the parish priest, Father Julian Tenison Woods, who shared her dream to educate the poor, and
when she was 24 years old she believed that she was free at last to follow that dream. Mary was well known for
her maxim: ‘Never see a need without doing something about it.’ In 1866, Mary and her sister opened a school in

MAIN COMMITTEE
124 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, 19 October 2010

a disused stable in Penola, thereby establishing the congregation of the Sisters of St Joseph. Mary was advised to
move to Adelaide, where the new congregation expanded and soon spread to other colonies and to New Zealand.
In what was and probably still is a radical and unfashionable mission, the sisters begged for their support—
much in the way of Buddhist monks—and only sought what parents of children could afford. Many could not pay
anything. Later, and again in a mission against the norm, Mary established homes for unmarried pregnant girls, for
women coming out of jail and for destitute elderly.
We should reflect and do well to remember that Mary’s and her order’s initial achievements were accomplished
at a time when transport was mainly horse powered and funding was principally from donations. Mary inherited
from her mother a strong belief in the providence of God. Her faith, hope and charity sustained her daily life.
From all reports, Mary’s courage, gentleness and compassion enabled her to support isolated rural battlers, urban
slum-dwellers and the ordinary working class people and it was with these that she lived and worked.
Mary was loyal to her church, cared for priests and would never allow a sister to say a word against a priest or
bishop. Unfortunately and almost fatally for the future of the order, it was a value that was not reciprocated by
some priests and bishops. Much has been made of her invalid excommunication by the ailing Bishop Shiel of
Adelaide. However and fortunately, the Jesuits maintained their support for Mary and quietly continued to give
her Holy Communion at the Norwood Church.
Mary remained loyal to her church but steadfast in remaining true to her understanding of God’s will. Thank-
fully, Bishop Shiel, five months after her excommunication, realised his error and, from his deathbed, revoked the
excommunication. Mary struggled on to achieve her vision of the Sisters of Saint Joseph of the Sacred Heart serv-
ing those in need regardless of state or diocesan borders. Inevitably, Mary encountered powerful authorities intent
upon exercising complete control of activities within their jurisdictions.
Mary wanted sisters to be governed by a sister superior-general, free to send them wherever there was a need.
Usually, religious orders were subject to the authority of the local bishop. Furthermore, Mary wanted her sisters to
live as the poor did in small communities of two or three sisters and in houses that were poor, like those of the
people. At that time, religious people usually lived in congregational communities, not among the people.
Mary’s vision and mission was for and of the whole of Australia at a time when it was a collection of colonies.
Mary treated the first peoples of the land, the Aborigines, with respect and as a governess extended her friendship
to the local Aboriginal children and taught some to read and write. Mary is remembered for her work and for her
person. The late Pope John Paul II said in Sydney at the time of her beatification in 1995:
Because the love of God inflamed her heart, she tenaciously defended the weak, the poor, the suffering and all those on the
margins of society. She worked to assist women and families in distress and to eradicate ignorance among the young. ... In her,
the unwanted, the unloved and those alienated from society found comfort and strength.
Mary’s life was stamped by the gospel injunction to love one’s neighbour as oneself. She sought dignity for the
poor and especially women in harsh and remote places. Of the impact of her work and person upon Australia and
Australians, Paul Keating, then Prime Minister of Australia, addressing parliament on 30 January 1995 said:
The qualities she embodied—openness and tolerance, courage, persistence, faith and care for others—are qualities for indi-
viduals, communities and nations to live by.
And in 2008, during his visit to Sydney for World Youth Day, Pope Benedict XVI, in speaking of Mary MacKil-
lop, said:
I know that her perseverance in the face of adversity, her plea for justice on behalf of those unfairly treated and her practical
example of holiness have become a source of inspiration for all Australians.
Clearly and importantly, St Mary of the Cross was inspired and sustained by her understanding of God’s will and
the part she had to play in his plan. It was the essence of her work and person and the source of her moral courage.
Those who joined her shared her vision and the source of her inspiration and courage and achieved great things in
a very short period of time in an environment that was very challenging and, at times, openly hostile.
Nevertheless, I have only sketched the outline of how the mind and heart of Mary MacKillop may have ticked
and can but wonder at what she was able to achieve and more especially admire how her relationship with her
God energised her. Catholics throughout the land, none more so than those in my local community—particularly
Kim and Sue Chen—have every reason to celebrate the formal declaration of the sainthood of Mary MacKillop.
Every Australian who admires the selfless actions of one of their own need go no further for inspiration than this
extraordinary Australian woman.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (8.42 pm)—On indulgence: to all of my colleagues in this place, I would say
that many of them claim to have in their electorates a close association with St Mary of the Cross. That is because
Mary belongs to no single part of Australia but to all Australians. As my friend and colleague the member for Reid

MAIN COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 125

has just pointed out, Mary’s earthly remains are in the heart of my electorate of North Sydney. In fact back in 1909
Mary was buried at Gore Hill cemetery. Even in those days, only just after her death, she was so venerated by so
many Australians that people were taking soil from the site of her burial and quite appropriately the Josephites
found a permanent resting place for Mary in the heart of the CBD of North Sydney.
The canonisation of Mary MacKillop was watched by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Australians.
Apart from the 10,000 proud and happily boisterous Australians in St Peter’s Square as part of a crowd of 50,000,
there were Australians all over the nation visiting places and happily celebrating the canonisation of Mary, our
first saint. I think the Pope’s smile, which emerged during the canonisation in reaction to the boisterous support of
the Australian people in the crowd, would have brought a smile to the face of Mary herself. We are immensely
proud to have our first home-grown saint.
So many of my colleagues have outlined the history of Mary, who was born in Melbourne in 1842 and in 1866
opened the first St Joseph’s School in Penola in South Australia. In 1867 she took her vows to become Sister Mary
of the Cross. Within just three years Mary had established 21 schools with 72 sisters. She established refuges for
women coming out of prison. She established support facilities for the aged and orphans. She was the first Austra-
lian to establish an order and the first nun to leave the cities to educate and minister to the rural poor and the
working class.
So much has been written about her excommunication back in 1871, which was of course a terrible aberration.
The headquarters of the Josephite nuns were transferred to Sydney in 1833. In 1909, when Mary died, there were
750 sisters, there were institutes and houses sheltering over 1,000 people who were poor or in need and there were
117 schools attended by over 12,000 pupils.
Mary’s motto was ‘Never see a need without doing something about it’. I was very honoured to be invited to
speak at a dinner at Sydney Town Hall with the Prime Minister during the election campaign to raise funds to
support Josephite nuns travelling to Rome for the canonisation. It was on that day that I reflected on my own en-
gagement with the Josephite nuns. Written in Latin above one of the doors of St Paul’s Cathedral is: ‘If you are
looking for a monument, look around you.’ The great monument of Mary is the contribution of the Josephites over
all that time since she founded the order back, effectively, in 1866 when she opened St Joseph’s School in Penola.
I was one of the many people educated by the Josephites. I attended what was St Kieran’s parish school in
Northbridge; it is now St Philip Neri, named after the parish itself. There was a nun there—and I am sure she
would not mind—who, all those years ago, I thought was probably 100 years of age but is still alive today. It was
only a couple of years ago that I received a phone call from Sister Vincent. The phone call came through and my
staff said, ‘A Sister Vincent on the phone.’ The only Sister Vincent I knew was the principal of that school and she
had looked on me rather harshly during those years, usually with a weapon of mass destruction in her hand. She
took to heart the motto ‘Never see a need without doing something about it’ and she had thought I needed exces-
sive discipline from time to time, which was—
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr HOCKEY—Do not encourage her; she is still alive. Anyway, I had been sitting in parliament and had gone
back to my office when I got the message that Sister Vincent was on the phone. I nearly fell off my chair. In fact, I
stood up to take the call and I said, ‘Hello, Sister Vincent.’ She said: ‘Mr Hockey, whenever you sit in that cham-
ber, please do not slouch in the chair; sit up straight.’ I said, ‘Yes, Sister Vincent.’ Nothing had changed and this
wonderful Irish nun, who had dedicated her entire life to the Josephites, was still there for me.
During the election I went and visited her at the Josephite nursing home in Hunters Hill in my electorate and I
met so many other magnificent women who had dedicated their lives to making a contribution to God and, most
significantly, a contribution to the Josephites. It is fantastic. Those who give often receive and, of all the nuns in
that Josephite nursing home, five were more than 100 years of age, which is a pretty good batting average. But
they were still as sharp as their Irish heritage would allow them to be.
Throughout their lives the Josephites have been givers. What has most impressed me is that not only have the
Josephite nuns educated tens of thousands of people, and not only have they influenced the lives of so many fami-
lies through that education process, but the Josephite nuns have set up refuges for women who have been the vic-
tims of domestic violence, women with nowhere to go with their children in the darkest conceivable moment in a
human being’s life—when a man in the house is wreaking physical havoc upon a woman. And the Josephites were
there. Not only have they provided that service in Australia but they have provided, and they continue to provide,
essential services to help families and young children in New Zealand, East Timor, Ireland, Peru and Brazil. In the
past they have worked in countries like Papua-New Guinea, Uganda, Cambodia, Thailand, Tanzania and China. In
fact, my own sister, who lived in Senegal in West Africa for some period of time, also has an engagement with the
Josephites.

MAIN COMMITTEE
126 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, 19 October 2010

Today the work continues in a whole range of programs like the no-interest loan scheme, drug and alcohol pro-
grams, cancer support and family services. I will give just three examples of the work of the Josephites. St An-
thony’s Family Care in Croydon, which I think might be in the electorate of the member for Reid, provides ser-
vices to families of Sudanese refugees—respite care and support for families with disabled children and a child-
care centre. When I was the minister in charge of Centrelink the Sudanese refugee issue was one that I was acutely
aware of, given the horrendous experience of the child dying in a home of African refugees because they did not
know how to use the phone to call an ambulance. It is for reasons like this that you need this sort of NGO care—
care which no government organisation can ever be a substitute for.
In New Zealand the sisters run the Beautiful Daughters program to help assist young women who are homeless
or living in poverty—again, they are focusing on those most in need. In Australia the sisters run the Josephite
Counter-Trafficking Project, which primarily assists Asian women who have been trafficked as sex slaves or as
working slaves to Australia.
Even though he is a very good friend of mine, Peter FitzSimons, in his columns of recent times, has been writ-
ing that to believe in God is absurd and that he is a creation of the mind. I would say to my mate Fitzy and to all
those who are atheists: do not be threatened by people who have faith. I gave a speech along these lines, not long
ago, in defence of God and I stand by everything I said. The Josephites encapsulate what it means to be compas-
sionate. Whether it is a Catholic god, a Muslim god or a Jewish god, our God is compassionate and preaches com-
passion.
Therefore, I would say that the embodiment of the Josephites and the legacy of Mary are the fact that compas-
sion exists on a daily basis, particularly for those most vulnerable. That is Mary’s great legacy; that is the great
contribution of Mary of the Cross. Her canonisation is merely a step along the path. Her great legacy will be the
ongoing contribution of the Josephites in Australia and other parts of the world. The recognition of Mary by this
parliament, by the Pope, by the Church of Rome and by people around the world is really recognition of the con-
tribution of those who have followed her, as much as it is recognition of her own life, and a thankyou to all of
them for what they have done and particularly what they are going to do for the poorest people and the most vul-
nerable people for many years into the future.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (8.55 pm)—I too rise to speak in respect of the canonisation of the Blessed Mary MacK-
illop, who on Sunday, 17 October—an occasion that should be a source of celebration, inspiration and national
pride for Australians, regardless of their religious belief—was made a saint. The Blessed Mary MacKillop was
born in Fitzroy in Melbourne in 1842. She was the eldest of six children, born to Scottish immigrants, Alexander
MacKillop and Flora MacDonald. In 1861 she moved to Penola in South Australia to work as a governess for her
uncle. There she met Father Julian Tenison Woods. In 1866 she returned to Penola and, with Father Woods, estab-
lished Australia’s first free Catholic school. The same year she adopted the religious name Sister Mary of the
Cross and co-founded the religious order of the Sisters of St Joseph and took a vow of poverty.
In 1871, after disagreements with Bishop Sheil, she was excommunicated from the church, only to be accepted
back some five months later. When she died in 1909 there were 117 schools around Australia—with 12,409 pu-
pils—founded by the Sisters of St Joseph. It is an extraordinary legacy to her work that many of those schools are
still open today.
In 1925 the Sisters of St Joseph began the process to have Sister Mary declared a saint. Forty-eight years later,
in 1973, the initial investigations into her sainthood closed. Following other pronouncements and further investi-
gations, Sister Mary was beatified by Pope John Paul II. In 2009 the Vatican approved the second miracle, paving
the way for her sainthood. On 17 October, after an 85-year process, sainthood was finally bestowed on the Blessed
Mary MacKillop and five others by Pope Benedict XVI. She became Australia’s first ever saint. I note that she
was the first Australian saint and that our first saint was a woman. Of the six people who were made saints on 17
October, two of them were males, but Australia’s first saint was a woman. Recognition in the form of sainthood is
of significance to Christians and especially so to Catholics. I spoke briefly to Adelaide’s Archbishop, Philip Wil-
son, the day before he left for the Vatican. I know that the occasion was to be a highlight in his own life and he
was looking very much forward to it.
Around Australia special masses and celebrations have been held by the Catholic community in the lead-up to
the canonisation and were held also on the day. The story of the life of the Blessed Mary MacKillop should be an
inspiration to all Australians. Through her courage, tenacity and determination, and driven by her compassion and
sense of justice, she touched the lives of so many people and gave hope to the poor and the desperate. In her 67
years, the Blessed Mary MacKillop travelled to many parts of Australia and lived in many towns. Not surprisingly,
many Australian communities today feel a special connection with her and with her legacy—none more so than
the community of Penola, where her work began.

MAIN COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 127

Her legacy, however, extends beyond Australia. The work of the Sisters of St Joseph stretches across the globe.
Today there are about 860 sisters of St Joseph working in many roles and many places around the world. They are
all doing social work and helping people in need in poor countries, in aged-care centres, in detention centres, in
Indigenous communities and wherever there is need. I recall, not so long ago, I was approached by some sisters of
St Joseph, who had been working and are still working among Indigenous communities in Australia, to discuss the
plight of the communities that they were working with.
It is indeed an incredible legacy—a legacy that will continue to grow through the ongoing work of the Sisters
of St Joseph in schools here as well as in their work around the world. It is a legacy that is made even more ex-
traordinary because, for much of her adult life, the health of the blessed Mary MacKillop was not good. She in
fact travelled frequently to New Zealand to take hot baths to seek some relief from what was thought to be a form
of arthritis. Yet she persisted and persevered with her work throughout her whole life. In South Australia, the late
Adelaide columnist, Max Harris, became a champion for the cause of her being made saint. He coined the phrase
‘A saint for all Australians’. The blessed Mary MacKillop is indeed a saint for all Australians. I conclude with this
quote from her:
Now more than ever we should be humble, patient, charitable and forgiving. If we cannot excuse everything we can at least
excuse the intention.
I believe that that quote says much about the character of the blessed Mary MacKillop, who is today a saint.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—I thank honourable members for their contributions on the
canonisation of Mary MacKillop. St Mary of the Cross is, I think, the correct way of referring to her following her
canonisation.
DAME JOAN SUTHERLAND
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (9.02 pm)—It is with some sadness that I rise to acknowledge the life of Joan Suth-
erland and record my deepest regret at her death on 11 October 2010. Joan Sutherland was one of the world’s best
singers, and it is appropriate that we in this place record our appreciation of her long career at the highest level
and tender our profound sympathy to her family in their bereavement.
For Australians, Joan Sutherland is the central figure in the performance of opera. She was central to its devel-
opment in Australia. She raised the profile of opera and was instrumental in the development of our own opera
company. She changed the view of a nation with her extraordinary voice, skill and talent. She well and truly en-
tranced the world. She was in every sense a remarkable artist.
I want to talk a little bit about opera itself in the context of talking about Joan. There probably are not that many
people who know the form very well. I was lucky enough to work with the Queensland opera company as its pro-
duction manager for about six years. My first introduction to that company was as a repetiteur, training singers in
their roles. I did not get to work with Joan Sutherland but I did work with a number of other Australians. It is an
amazing form, and I want people to understand this about what they see when they see Joan performing on televi-
sion or on video.
Opera is performed in some of the largest theatres in the world, and they are not amplified. Our Sydney Opera
House is quite small. Most of our opera houses in Brisbane and Melbourne seat about 2,000 people. The big ones
seat 3,500 or more—even up to 5,000. Opera houses are huge cavernous spaces. A singer stands on the stage,
‘unamplified’, and sings over the top of a chorus of maybe 60 or more singers and an orchestra of anywhere be-
tween 60 and 100 players. It is a phenomenal feat for anyone. Because of the size of these opera houses, over
many centuries the standard of performance has become incredibly high. Yet every now and again you get a singer
like Joan Sutherland who creates another level in that form.
Opera is an incredibly physical form. If you are ever lucky enough to stand close to an opera singer in full
flight, when they are filling a 3,500-seat auditorium, you will see that their entire body is involved in the perform-
ance. It is incredibly physical. Operas are 2½, three, four or five hours long. They are physical marathons in every
sense. The singers with the biggest voices in the world, singing the big roles, usually perform only twice a week
because it is so physically demanding. It is not physically possible to perform those roles any more than that. It is
an incredible achievement at the best of times.
Joan Sutherland took the form to another level altogether. Singing for anyone requires a natural physical talent.
If you want to be good at it, it requires a combination of bone structure and body type, and Joan Sutherland had
that. She probably inherited it from her mother, who was also a singer. It is a great advantage but it is, of course,
just a start. Then there is the commitment and focus over many years to develop the technique, the facility and the
strength in this incredibly physical form to avoid injury from overuse. Most singers with this kind of large voice,
again, as I said, perform around only twice a week. It is incredibly demanding. Joan Sutherland did that work. Her
technique was miraculous. She had an inhuman capacity to control this phenomenal voice. It was an unusually

MAIN COMMITTEE
128 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, 19 October 2010

large and full voice for a coloratura soprano, with great power and warmth and remarkable agility, given its
strength and size. She had a trill that other singers would die for, exceptional intonation and pinpoint accuracy in
the upper register. She could do all that—and that is technique; and very few will ever match her technical capac-
ity.
More than having the physical talent and the technique, Joan Sutherland knew what to do with it. She is un-
matched as a musician, as an interpreter. She had the technique to deliver what was in her mind, but the technique
was absolutely her servant. You never saw it; you were never aware of it; it was invisible. It disappeared beneath
the phrase. You could not see or hear her think. You could just hear the music. For performers seeking to perform
at their best, that ability not to distract, that ability to support the performance itself is what you strive for, and this
woman, Joan Sutherland, was the master at it. It was quite remarkable to hear her perform. Her live performance
was, for me, the most amazing. She had the extraordinary ability when performing live to take all the time in the
world, to give herself space in the phrasing just when the voice needed it and to carry an audience to the absolute
limit of their capacity. She did so in a way that was so much a part of a performance that those around her went
with her with great ease.
I can only imagine that performances like Joan’s required great courage. I do not mean courage to go on the
stage. Stage fright is not the most frightening thing about performance. The Minister for Regional Australia, Re-
gional Development and Local Government, who is here, knows that recently I performed the Rachmaninov sec-
ond piano concerto with one of my local orchestras. It is a hard piece and I had not performed it for about four
years, and probably not for about 10 years before that, so I was doing something I had done when I was young but
not for many years. I realised the single thing that I had forgotten about performance is how much courage it
takes. Again, I am not talking about courage to go on the stage; I am talking about courage in the moment—to
take the leap, to put yourself aside and do what needs to be done in the moment, and to do that minute after min-
ute, second after second, and to move on to the next point. It is a learned skill, this courage.
When I listen to Joan perform and watch her live performances on DVD, I can see the remarkable ability she
had to reach beyond the limit of what she was capable of. She was an extraordinarily courageous performer. I
doubt that any of us will know what was really going on in her head and I doubt that many of us could understand
it. For an artist to achieve that level—the level of discipline and skill and commitment in her daily life—is proba-
bly already beyond what most of us can imagine. I would hope that Joan, when she gave a performance that she
was proud of and happy with—and I suspect like most performers she found something to be unhappy with—
walked off stage and had people around her who were capable of sharing the high five moment with her on a level
of genuine understanding. I believe that she found that in her partner, Richard Bonynge; that they were together
able to share the heights of Joan’s achievements. It would be a very lonely life to achieve something so much
greater than her colleagues if she did not have someone who could truly understand what she achieved in her
greatest moments.
I worked in opera in the 1980s. It is a very difficult form. It is almost impossible to get right. It requires so
many people’s input at the highest level. I can well and truly tell you that Joan was the pinnacle for us in the opera
world as a voice, as an interpreter and for her extraordinary ability to perform. But she was also the pinnacle for
what a human being could achieve and strive for. I still wonder how a human being can get to be that good. I have
known many great singers. I have worked with Joan Carden, for example, and quite a number of very well known
Australian singers and I can imagine the level of work that is required, but with Joan I cannot imagine how a per-
son can actually get to be that good.
I know that the Australian opera would simply have not grown in the way that it did without the presence in our
lives of Joan Sutherland. She lifted expectations and she convinced many in our nation that they loved opera—as
they should; it is a fine form. Her outstanding contribution was recognised in honours, including a Companion of
the Order of Australia in 1975, the Dame of the British Empire in 1979 and the Order of Merit in 1991. She had a
career that lasted more than 30 years at the top—and that is 30 years of hours of technical work every day, hours
of scales and work to improve her strength and her stamina. In that 30 years she mastered opera’s most demanding
roles in Norma, Il Trovatore, La Traviata, Rigoletto, in the most important opera houses of the world. Her most
famous role was the lead in Donizetti’s Lucia di Lammermoor, which she performed 233 times. In one perform-
ance in the role in 1959 she was acknowledged with a 19-minute standing ovation.
Joan Sutherland said that her mother was a great influence in her life. Her mother was a very good singer in her
own right and, while she was not singing professionally when she was raising Joan, she still used to practise. She
kept up her scales and exercises and Joan sat at her knee and learned those from about the age of three. So Joan
was well versed in the voice very early. She says that she was not trained by her mother but she acknowledges the
extraordinary influence that her mother had on her life.

MAIN COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 129

She also acknowledges the incredible influence of Richard Bonynge, her husband, who encouraged her to de-
velop the upper part of her voice. In fact, he said of her voice that the voice at the top just did not want to stop; it
was effortless. It was his influence, working with Joan, that encouraged her to develop that upper repertoire. The
extent of her repertoire was immense. She learned 54 leading roles, from Handel to Mozart and Puccini and Verdi.
If you have never tried to learn something that complex, the job of even learning the role—it can take several
months and it has to be done on time; you have to be ready; you cannot fake it—is one of the extraordinary talents
that performers at this level need to have. She had 54 leading roles, which is an extraordinary repertoire for any
singer.
She ended her career with final performances at the Sydney Opera House and at Covent Garden in 1990 where
she sang, as Nellie Melba did, ‘There is no place like home’. For those who have not heard that performance, it is
quite an extraordinary performance.
Mr Murphy—A magnificent performance.
Ms OWENS—It is a magnificent performance. There were many tributes to Joan, as you would expect at this
time. The opera director John Copley was one of her many friends and admirers. They had known each other as
they grew in the early days, so he knew her quite well. He said—and I suspect that he is absolutely right—that
people did not realise just how hard she actually did work to achieve this extraordinary standard.
Again, the thing about Joan Sutherland is, in this unassuming person and this voice that just appeared as if it
came from heaven, you did not see the evidence. You did not see the signs of the technique. It was so well hidden
in her mastery—an extraordinary thing. Dame Kiri Te Kanawa, who by the way is not a bad singer in her own
right—not bad at all, Dame Kiri, a quite extraordinary performer—says that Joan was an inspiration to a genera-
tion of performers. One of my favourite quotes about Joan Sutherland comes from Kiri. She says:
She was a bit like the Pied Piper. We followed her to the top of the hill and hopefully we got there too.
It is an amazing thing when artists of the calibre of Dame Kiri Te Kanawa, Pavarotti, and Joan Carden admired
this woman so greatly and aspired to a standard that they freely acknowledged they would probably never reach.
It is hard to imagine another Joan. It is hard to imagine another artist emerging with the natural physical talent,
the capacity to work, the musicality and the partnerships, and the opportunities that generate the greatest work. It
is hard to imagine another one. I hope we get many more so that we can experience the extraordinary magic that
was Joan Sutherland. She will, of course, live on. Her voice lives on in the many recordings that she made al-
though I am aware that she did not make an official recording of the Queen of the Night. There is a pirate copy,
apparently, but I will not be going into that one. She did not make an official recording of the Queen of the Night
and I am very sad about that because that is one that I would love to hear.
She will live on also in the many voices that were inspired by her and in those who marvel at her capacity to
strive for standards that most of us cannot imagine. She will also live on forever in the hearts of those who heard
her.
Dame Joan is survived by her husband Richard Bonynge and her son Adam and two grandchildren. I thank
them for sharing their wife, mother and grandmother with us for a time and I wish them well in this difficult time.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—I thank the member for Parramatta for her very insightful
and substantial contribution to this debate. We are enormously privileged that the Minister for Regional Australia,
Regional Development and Local Government has graced us with his presence in the Main Committee and I call
him.
Mr CREAN (Hotham—Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and
Minister for the Arts) (9.17 pm)—On indulgence: thank you Mr Deputy Speaker and it gives me great pleasure to
join with the member for Parramatta and indeed the member for Reid in this tribute to Dame Joan. I thank the
member for Parramatta for her heartfelt expressions of not just sympathy but empathy with the great work that
Dame Joan did. Knowing the background, as I do, of the member for Parramatta, not just her love of the arts but
her competence in performing them, it was great to be in the chamber listening to that tribute.
Lyndon Terracini, Opera Australia’s Artistic Director, put it simply: Dame Joan was Australia’s greatest opera
singer. Dame Joan was also a great ambassador for Australia. She made an extraordinary contribution to the per-
forming arts and opera in particular, both here and internationally. Her international success and her mentoring of
young artists and musicians helped Australians believe that our creative talent could hold its own anywhere. Her
dedication to delivering great performances to countless audiences in this country made Australians confident that
we could nurture and develop a rich cultural life in our cities and towns.
Dame Joan had a unique and great talent as a singer. The member for Parramatta has taken us in great detail to
that. But in marking her passing I want to speak about more than her talent—stupendous though that was. Joan

MAIN COMMITTEE
130 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, 19 October 2010

Sutherland, growing up in the Great Depression, worked extraordinarily hard to become a singer. She had no
overnight success. She developed a discipline and dedication to preparation and rehearsal which have become
legend. Perhaps most impressively, she was prepared to work so hard at a time when the prospect of making a
career as an opera singer in Australia could only have been described as a crazy dream.
It was a time when most Australian artists went overseas to prove themselves. So she did in 1951, after winning
competitions here. When she became an international star with her renowned 1959 performances of Lucia Di
Lammermoor it was a tribute to her determination and professionalism as well as to her artistry. She was soon in
demand in the great opera houses around the world, winning audiences for works from the 18th and 19th century
operas in which she could use the full strength and range of her voice for bel canto roles. She also recorded full
operas and arias so she could be heard by many more people. The reviews spoke of her dramatic coloratura so-
prano, a combination of gleaming tone, huge range and infallible command of florid passages.
Her return to perform in Australia at the height of her international success marked the beginning of a golden
era in Australian opera. Thanks to the multitude of recordings, including many of her live Australian perform-
ances, we will never forget her sublime voice—the one that Luciano Pavarotti described as ‘the voice of the cen-
tury’.
Fortunately, Australian audiences could and did hear this remarkable voice because she returned year after year
to her home country to perform. Opera Australia describes her as a true company member, always a star but also a
team player. She gave her time generously to her chosen art form and took a real interest in the development of
young singers in particular. Over the last few days many of her colleagues have told of her personal kindness and
professional support as a fellow singer and musician.
Without Joan Sutherland and the excitement that she generated in the 70s and 80s with her incredible voice,
there might not be an Opera Australia today. Tours and appearances by Joan meant that opera became more popu-
lar in Australia than every before. Dame Joan took on the responsibilities as well as the privileges that came with
being a true diva. Audiences expected much of her and she knew that people invested a great deal of money to
hear this world star. She took every performance seriously so that she could meet those expectations and she was
renowned for her commitment to careful study of the score for every performance, whether it was her first or
100th performance in a role.
She sang at the first ever opera in the Sydney Domain in 1982—a free event that gave Australians an opportu-
nity to participate in opera outside the main stage and formality of a theatre. During the first act of La Traviata it
started to rain but Dame Joan was not going to let the audience down, so she went on with the second act with an
umbrella and sang despite the downfall.
With the ABC television broadcasts of Australian opera performances, Dame Joan Sutherland was probably
better known to Australians than many popular music stars—and even her famed predecessor, Dame Nellie
Melba. A 1982 television simulcast from the Sydney Opera House of Dame Joan live in concert with Luciano
Pavarotti was viewed by six million Australians and it redefined the ABC’s attitude to the arts on television.
This parliament is deeply saddened at the news of the passing of Dame Joan and offers condolences to her hus-
band, Richard Bonynge, who is also a great Australian artist and musician, and to her son, Adam Bonynge, and
their family. Dame Joan had a wonderful partnership with her husband. Their shared passion for opera and music
meant that they could also share the highs and lows of an international career in a highly demanding art form. Mr
Bonynge, a champion of the repertoire that Dame Joan made famous, gave her confidence and trust.
In 1961 she was made Australian of the Year, in 1975 she was honoured as a Companion of the Order of Aus-
tralia, in 1979 she was made a Dame of the British Empire and in 1991 she received an Order of Merit. These are
fitting honours for a woman known for her integrity, her sincerity and her dedication to her art form. She was also
generous in helping others through benefit performances for bushfire appeals and a gala performance at Covent
Garden for Cyclone Tracy victims.
I expect that many Australians will watch and listen to the recordings of her performances to remember her
voice and stage presence now and for many years to come. I thank the members of Opera Australia, and many
others, who have shared their stories of Dame Joan’s life. It seems very hard to find anyone who says a bad word
about her—such was her commitment and generosity as a member of the national opera company.
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (9.26 pm)—On indulgence: I too join with the member for Parramatta and the Minister
for the Arts in expressing my sympathy to Dame Joan’s husband, Richard Bonynge, and their son, Adam, and their
family. As the Minister for Arts and the member for Parramatta pointed out, Dame Joan Sutherland had the voice
of the century. There was no doubt about that. Pavarotti, a great authority himself as one of the world’s greatest
tenors, delivered that great accolade to her. It was very fitting that when she first made her name in singing Lucia
di Lammermoor in 1959 in Venice in the toughest environment that any opera singer could visit—an Italian audi-

MAIN COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 131

ence—she received a long, thunderous applause and she was given the magnificent title ‘La Stupenda’, which
stuck with her all her life.
I was very privileged to meet Dame Joan Sutherland on one occasion in 1976 when my music teacher, the late
Austin Goldberg, who had studied with her at the Sydney Conservatorium in the 1950s, said, ‘Johnny, you have to
come and hear the voice of the century.’ On that occasion I heard her sing an opera that you do not hear people
talk about so much—Delibes’ Lakme. Lakme is a very difficult opera with a famous aria called the ‘Bell Song’.
One is truly up in the stratosphere singing the high Ds and the high E flats in that most demanding role. For the
life of me, I cannot think of anyone who has been able to achieve the recognition that she received for singing that
magnificent opera. The hairs on the back of my neck were standing on end that particular night when I saw her.
Mr Goldberg took me backstage and introduced me to her and her husband, Richard Bonynge. It is something
that I will never forget, because she was a very humble and gracious lady. You almost got the feeling that she was
so honoured that someone would think so much of the performances that she gave. She signed my program, as did
Richard Bonynge, and I will never forget it.
The minister made reference to La Traviata in 1982. I was in the domain on that wet night in 1982, as I was for
subsequent performances she gave, such as The Tales of Hoffmann, and I estimate that there would have been
something like 100,000 people who had brought a picnic to the Domain. It is a great place for concerts in the
summer and as part of the Sydney Festival. I heard that magnificent voice there on a number of occasions and she
gave so much joy and happiness to so many people in Sydney.
Just up the road from my electorate office in Burwood Road, Burwood is St Paul’s Anglican Church. It is a
magnificent church that is famous for many things, probably it is most famous because Don Bradman got married
there. The Joan Sutherland Musical Society have been holding concerts in St Paul’s for a number of years in hon-
our of Dame Joan. Until recent years, she has attended those concerts. I did not have the opportunity to attend
those concerts in her honour when she attended but I do know that the Anglican minister of that church, Father
John Kohler, was just so delighted that she would come all the way back from Switzerland to Australia to go to
those humble concerts in St Paul’s Anglican Church in Burwood. To the society’s credit they are going to put on a
tribute concert to Dame Joan next month, and I hope to get there.
As both the minister and the member for Parramatta have pointed out, Dame Joan sang in all the great opera
houses around the world: the Met, La Scala, Covent Garden and, of course, Sydney Opera House, where I had the
privilege to hear her. Honestly, she gave so much joy to so many, and every time she sang one of the great arias
the audience would just clap and clap and clap. There was no doubt about the uniqueness, clarity and purity of that
great voice.
Some of the great recordings I have listened to are Rigoletto, Norma, Lucia di Lammermoor, Lakme, which I
have mentioned, The Tales of Hoffmann and La Traviata. I was listening to the ABC last Saturday afternoon,
which was doing a tribute to her, and they mentioned that she recorded something like 41 operas. It is a wonderful
legacy that she leaves for all of us because, although she may have gone, we can still hear that great voice. I think
it is very noteworthy that she developed that great voice through the hard work and efforts of her husband, Rich-
ard Bonynge, who himself was a great classical pianist and who became a celebrated conductor. He tricked Joan.
He took her from a soprano to a coloratura. He transposed some of those great arias. He put them up a semi tone
or a tone until she did not realise she was singing a high D or a high E flat, which is impossible for most mortals
on this planet.
Ms Owens—She had an F sharp.
Mr MURPHY—She had an F sharp? I could believe that because her voice was absolutely extraordinary. I
think it is wonderful that, all those years ago, the Labor government gave her the recognition she so deserved by
opening the Dame Joan Sutherland Centre in Penrith. The Labor party has had many a launch of its state and fed-
eral campaigns there and there have been some incredible musical events. She will be remembered out in Syd-
ney’s west but she will always be remembered in Sydney, across Australia and internationally with the theatre at
the Sydney Opera House, which is to be named after her. That is a decision taken by Premier Keneally and I ap-
plaud her for that.
It was a great privilege to hear Dame Joan sing. It was a great honour for me to meet her with my music teacher
who was studying at the conservatorium, as I said earlier, in the 50s. But for him I would not have had that oppor-
tunity because she did not often get the chance to sing in Australia. The demands of Europe, North America and
South America, where she sang so much, did not give her the opportunity to come back to Australia as often as
she would have liked, I am sure, to perform. I want to thank her for all the joy and happiness that she has given to
me and so many Australians and to so many people internationally. Vale, Dame Joan. Vale, La Stupenda.

MAIN COMMITTEE
132 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, 19 October 2010

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—The member for Reid is more fortunate than I was because
my music teacher told me she did not want to see me anymore because of the lack of quality of my music. I would
like to say that a very good friend of mine at Red Hill, Mrs Margaret Kelly, who was a good friend of Dame
Joan’s, told me how humble Dame Joan was, which of course verifies what the member for Reid has just said. She
would run into her in Canberra in a department store and she would say, ‘Hi, remember me, I’m Joan Bonynge.’
She never used her title or anything like that. I think that she was a wonderful Australian and it is so sad that we
have lost her.
Main Committee adjourned at 9.36 pm

MAIN COMMITTEE